There are some more pictures and discussion up here:
https://chris262hobby.blogspot.com/2019/11/cod-november-19-game-day-megageddon.htmlAnd the players' pack:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1J1WNzOLpN4Ce7kEg56DfskrP1AEHhRyN/viewAs Deb's Saim-Hann partner, I found the format really interesting. The games were a little too long to do this regularly (2v2 involves a lot of waiting around), but the scenario was a refreshing variation on the standard tournament scenario.
The first thing to note was that scoring was
cumulative, with points gained for each objective held at the end of each turn. I don't think that any of us really played to this as much as we could have, preferring to instead charge forward and kill things. Still, it gave the more mobile Eldar something of an advantage (particularly over the titans): by moving forward agressively, we held 2/3 of the table at the end of the turn 1 and only slowly lost ground as the more-resilient imperial side pushed forward. I'd be interested in playing more games using this scoring format to see how it plays out, particularly once players have managed to internalise the importance of moving up and taking ground as quickly as possible.
The second thing that I really noticed the effect of was the different table size. We played on 1500x2100mm tables, rather than the standard 1200x1800. With each player deploying in half of their long table edge (15cm deep as per normal), this meant that the game began with opposing players separated by 120cm rather than the usual 90cm.
This makes a massive difference to the flow of the game: for example, as Saim-Hann I'm used to getting plenty of Turn 1 shooting with 70cm double moves (2x 35cm) and a shooting range of 45cm. If the opponent is moving forwards at the same time I am, I can normally pull off a few move-shoot-move actions to leave my Falcons and Hornets positioned for turn 2 actions. This works well with an initial 90cm separation, but doesn't work at all from 120cm: the distances are just too great. Facing off against Quake Cannon titans, this meant that I spent the whole Turn 1 moving forwards while being shot at - I think the only shooting I managed was from garrisoning Hornets, and a few ineffective Fire Prism plinks. I was still able to set up a supported engage for my first actions of turn 2, but it required a March to get anywhere close (rather than a double) and was less supported than I'd have liked.
I was genuinely shocked by how different the game felt as a result of a simple change of +30cm to starting separation, and really enjoyed having to rethink my usual approaches as a result. I realise that standard tables are a standard size for a reason, but this game really got me thinking about the importance of deployment separation and table size in 'normal' games of EA. Eg, what if a tournament was played over multiple tables with the same
area but different aspect ratios? Some with the standard 1.8x1.2m, some square tables with 1.5x1.5m, some wide-but-shallow 2.2x1m table, some played deploying 20 or 25cm deep from the short edges of a standard table?.. Of course, in the real world not all of these sizes are readily available in MDF or game mats so the idea isn't entirely practical. I'm sure it would have major implications for inter-army balance. But as someone used to playing out a game within certain and predictable range bands, I'd appreciate having to think a little more carefully about the different ways to engage mobile or static opponents starting from different opening separations.