{"id":4719,"date":"2016-09-08T05:30:42","date_gmt":"2016-09-08T09:30:42","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.rocketshipgames.com\/blogs\/tjkopena\/?p=4719"},"modified":"2021-02-17T17:28:46","modified_gmt":"2021-02-17T22:28:46","slug":"nova-2016-40k-trios","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.rocketshipgames.com\/blogs\/tjkopena\/2016\/09\/nova-2016-40k-trios\/","title":{"rendered":"2016 NOVA 40k Trios"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"nova-40k-150px\"This year Colin and I assumed\u00a0direction of the 40k Team Trios Tournament at the NOVA Open<\/a>\u00a0wargaming convention. It turned out a huge success. Eighteen teams (54 players) participated, doubling the previous participation record. Everything went\u00a0smoothly, and we had\u00a0a great group of players and armies. This is a quick recap of the event.<\/p>\n

A few more photos than those here are in my Flickr gallery<\/a>. There are also many more in NOVA’s official Flickr gallery for day 1<\/a> of this year’s convention.<\/p>\n

\"2016<\/a>

2016 NOVA 40k Trios underway!<\/p><\/div>\n

Trios<\/h2>\n

NOVA 40k Trios is a somewhat unique format. Players register in teams of three. \u00a0Over three game rounds they play a\u00a0doubles games with each\u00a0of their teammates, and one solo game on their own. It’s a\u00a0very friendly format because you’re guaranteed two games playing alongside friends, so relative newcomers tend to enjoy it. Meanwhile, you also get one game to bring out all your toys.\u00a0That’s\u00a0actually a big mental challenge, especially for the final\u00a0solo player of the day. It’s hard to go from playing 1000pts alongside a friend for two games in a row\u00a0and then suddenly have to efficiently command 1850 points\u00a0on your own.<\/p>\n

In addition, NOVA Trios puts a big emphasis on\u00a0the theme of the armies and crafting a narrative about why these three forces are fighting together. There’s a separate prize for that, and many teams\u00a0prepare detailed stories, display boards, and supporting materials to present that background.<\/p>\n

\"A<\/a>

A display board themed around a Jurassic Park of Tyranids.<\/p><\/div>\n

Updates<\/h2>\n

For 2016 we made a number of\u00a0big updates to the tournament. You can check out the full event rulebook<\/a>\u00a0for details. In general we put a lot of effort into simply\u00a0formalizing the event: Fully specified & objective theme scoring, comprehensive mission writeups, and so on, all available\u00a0online a full nine months in advance. Beyond that, we also\u00a0added or changed several components.<\/p>\n

First we dialed the solo game points down a bit, from 2000 to 1850. Historically Trios has always run very late and delayed\u00a0the start of the 40k Narrative well\u00a0into the night. So we shaved off these\u00a0points to better\u00a0foster finishing rounds on time. I also believe that playing smaller games reduces\u00a0many, though not all, of the rock\/paper\/scissors effects and arguable balance problems present in 40k\u00a0currently (balance in 40k is a whole other topic—I personally don’t agree that it’s “imbalanced,” but do feel\u00a0its balance paradigm\u00a0does not line up with most players’ assumptions and expectations).<\/p>\n

Conversely, we also allowed superheavies and gargantuan creatures. I just don’t think it’s realistic to not allow these in standard games anymore. Many factions have access to a big model and rely on them to counter\u00a0other army designs\u00a0like deathstars. They’re also a huge part of\u00a0the product line, with multiple\u00a0fantastic models available, and players want to use their favorite toys. However, there’s a strong argument that many are undercosted, and many casual players are still not prepared to fight them.\u00a0Our missions therefore include several penalties. Each superheavy or gargantuan in the opposing army gives a +1 bonus to the roll to determine turn order. In addition, every 2 hull points or wounds taken off a big model awards a victory point. We’ve used these rules in tournaments throughout the past two years.\u00a0I personally found them a severe disadvantage and stopped fielding my Imperial Knight, while other players felt such models were still worthwhile. So, I think they strike\u00a0a reasonable compromise, allowing these still controversial models\u00a0while\u00a0also\u00a0reining them in a bit.<\/p>\n

\"NOVA<\/a>

NOVA campaign badges marking the shoulders of a Space Marne army.<\/p><\/div>\n

We also permitted 30k armies.\u00a0A\u00a0bunch of questions came up about how exactly Age of Darkness<\/em> armies fit in, but nothing too problematic. With no 30k events scheduled for Thursday, a fair number of Heresy\u00a0players\u00a0joined in and\u00a0brought great looking armies.<\/p>\n

To\u00a0boost those remaining armies that don’t have access to a codex detachment or useful formations, we also added our Quick Reaction Force detachment. It’s basically a way to take an army with a bunch of elites, focus on either fast attack or heavy support, and\u00a0in return choose your warlord trait and get objective secured. A number of players\u00a0made use of it, but not nearly so many as to make clear that it’s overpowered.<\/p>\n

Finally, we added\u00a0an individual Warmaster scoring track separate from the team scoring.\u00a0Players were given a list of achievements for their warlord\u00a0to accomplish and earn points. The primary intent here was\u00a0to give something for good players on weaker teams to work toward, something for weaker players getting clobbered on the actual missions\u00a0to try and\u00a0achieve, and to bring some narrative flair to the games.<\/p>\n

\"Warlord<\/a>

Warlord achievements.<\/p><\/div>\n

Missions<\/h2>\n

For some time now we’ve been designing missions around a primary, secondary, and tertiary objective structure, respectively scoring up to 9, 6, and 5 points.\u00a0The tertiaries are the standard First Blood, Linebreaker, and Slay, but with the latter two doubled in value, and with an additional Victory Through Attrition objective for damaging superheavies and gargantuan creatures.\u00a0A list of secondary objectives is made available, either for each mission or events as a whole, from which players choose.\u00a0The goal is that they have to play to the mission, as captured by the primary objective. But in choosing a\u00a0secondary they can tailor\u00a0their strategic objectives to their strengths and preferences. For example,\u00a0faced with\u00a0a number of primary objectives, a player with few but robust units might opt for an annihilation-oriented secondary. Meanwhile, their opponent with a number of small, mobile forces, might double down on ground control and choose a secondary\u00a0for claiming terrain or additional objective markers.<\/p>\n

The first mission\u00a0had\u00a0players placing four objectives, resulting in one in each deployment zone and two in neutral ground. Players then had\u00a0a choice of scoring those continuously, at the end of their turns, or at the end of the game. This choice enables alpha strike, high mobility, and attrition oriented armies to all play toward their preferred\u00a0style and strengths.<\/p>\n

\"Booklet<\/a>

Booklet presenting the history of the campaign bringing one team’s armies together.<\/p><\/div>\n

Next up was an annihilation mission, based around eliminating quartiles of the opponent’s army. For breaking 25%, 50%, and 75% of their army by unit count, players got 2, 4, and 6 victory points.\u00a0This structure attempts to address some of the\u00a0imbalances in standard kill point accounting, without incurring complex point cost calculations. The challenge is that armies with many small units, including transports, are inherently at a disadvantage\u00a0to armies with just a few rock hard or huge\u00a0units if scoring is done just by counting units removed. My Kingbreakers pretty regularly field ~20 units, so there’s no way I’ll eliminate more units than, say, a Grey Knights army fielding 4 units. In the quartiles system though it’s more balanced: Eliminating just one\u00a0of those units is worth eliminating ~5 of mine. Importantly, we’re also able to calculate that outcome without delving into tallying up army points, it’s all based around simple\u00a0accounting of units.<\/p>\n

Rounding out the tournament was my take on a Maelstrom mission. I have a separate lengthy discussion about that<\/a>, but the core idea is removing much of the silly randomness and forced play in GW’s format, while preserving the required tactical flexibility and also giving more strategic control.<\/p>\n

This\u00a0arrangement of missions is not\u00a0happenstance. We open the day with a relatively simple, standard mission to get people going quickly and give nearly all armies an even chance through the choice of continuous or endgame scoring. Then the annihilation and Maelstrom missions play off each other. The former somewhat favors\u00a0armies built around rock units, while the latter somewhat favors armies with many\u00a0highly mobile, small units. You can’t pass through the tournament doing well by having just one or the other, you need to be able to play against your army’s\u00a0weaknesses.<\/p>\n

\"Dewey<\/a>

Dewey (right), NOVA’s head of ops, makes time to compete in the Trios.<\/p><\/div>\n

Outcomes<\/h2>\n

One of the big\u00a0stories from this year’s NOVA is Games Workshop’s<\/a> return to organized play. The company donated a tremendous amount of product to both the 40k prize bags and the SuperNOVA swag bags.\u00a0In addition, it provided impressive chainsword trophies to go with\u00a0the top prizes in each 40k & 30k event, custom sculpted specifically for NOVA.\u00a0As the first 40k event of the convention, we had the honor to give out the very first NOVA chainsword trophies, carried by hand\u00a0by Mike Brandt direct from Nottingham in order to be at the event\u00a0on time, to our Renaissance\u00a0Trio, the top team\u00a0from battle points, sportsmanship,\u00a0craftsmanship, and\u00a0theme scoring.<\/p>\n

\"40k<\/a>

40k Trios chainsword trophies, straight from Nottingham.<\/p><\/div>\n

Full final results are available in ODS<\/a> and \u00a0XLSX<\/a>\u00a0format.\u00a0Our winners were:<\/p>\n