Biscuit, I don't know you at all, but it sounds to me like you're feeling the pull of what drove Project Biomorph in the first place: evolution. With 6th suddenly sounding like it will be ok (funny how those sky-falling rumors that had been reported suddenly look up with a couple more pieces added!), I think you should devote your energy to where you'll be happiest making a difference.

Yeah, people supported Biomorph, for various reasons - one was probably a failsafe against the failure of 6E, sure, but a lot of it was probably also because we (as a general gaming populace) got excited about the idea that this game could be expanded, changed, and explored in new ways that focused on the end-user experience. This is the spirit that drove Biomorph, and it sounds like the same spirit that's driving your current thinking.

A mission (/battlefield) book would still hit all those key points of exploration; quality game-casting could push the boundaries of battle reports (maybe I'm alone in that I like watching them, but can't stand some of the low-quality, poorly created results on so many of them; however, I doubt that's the case). Either or both would have the potential to add something to our gaming community.

I guess my ultimate point is that you're under no obligation (other than maybe financial) to continue with the project, or any project that you start; those who supported you in it did so for their own reasons as well, and if some / all of them want to continue supporting it, they could do so even if you walk away. As for the forum Kirby so kindly bought you; is it possible that "Project: Biomorph" evolves into an incubator for a wider range of new projects? You wouldn't have to focus on just one at the exclusion of other discussions, and if you have people who are up for taking the lead on other community ideas, you may even end up with an interesting developer community growing out of the process.

Just my thinking, as a notably non-developer sort of guy.

Forewarning: I have not yet played in a tournament, so obviously take my thoughts with a grain of salt. I do, however, teach writing, so think of this more of a request for a clarification in language rather than anything on the mechanics of your tournament (though obviously the former will have a significant impact on people's interpretation of the latter). Moving on...

I like the win/loss system, but the way it's worded here is a bit ambiguous, and might encourage people to play in a somewhat bizarre way:

"Each secondary and tertiary objective that you win is added to your score as a tie break should multiple players finish on the same points. The secondary objectives count first, if it is still drawn then the tertiary objectives will determine the top seed.
e.g. Bob and Tim both finish on 3 Wins, Bob has won 2 secondary objectives and 1 tertiary. Tim has won 3 secondary objectives and no tertiary objectives. Tim places higher than Bob."

From this wording (given that it seems a "Win" can be gained by tying the Primary and winning on the Secondary), it seems like somebody might be better off playing not to lose on the Primary Objective (rather than playing to win it) and playing to win on the Secondary Objective. From how this reads, it means this scenario might be possible:

Toejam and Earl each finish with 3 wins. Toejam has 3 wins on the primary objective, 2 additional secondary objectives, and 3 tertiary objectives. Earl has all three of his wins on secondary objectives (none on primary), and no additional tertiary objectives. Earl finishes ahead of Toejam (3 Secondary Objectives > 2 Secondary Objectives; primary objectives are not explicitly listed as counting in a tiebreaker).

If that's the way you wanted it to turn out, then I apologize for wasting your time with this post! If it's not, you might want to include some language clarifying that the methods for determining the winner will be : Total Wins > Wins on Primary Objective > Secondary Objectives Completed > Tertiary Objectives Completed (or whatever you want it to be).

Sorry if this is common sense to all the tournament "regulars" - I was just thinking that it might help any newbies if the language was cleared up a bit in this area.

A battle report with a detailed strategic discussion - this is one of the most useful things I've read in a long time (though you and AbusePuppy always seem to deliver)! Thanks, and keep these coming!

I appreciate that you put in discussions of your line of thinking and various counter tactics into your write-ups. It's far more useful to somebody like me (who enjoys playing, but definitely has plenty of room for improvement in the strategy department) to see what goes through an experienced general's head during a match.

Thanks!

Very true - and not only that, but if you're trying to model night lords, you're probably sinking EXTRA into the army for all the cool little bits.

Creativity in modelling is a pretty big part of the hobby for many people. Most of my ICs are at least kit-bashed (and still WYSIWYG), and people never give me a problem about using them. Sure, it's not on the same scale as an entire army (or a rules swap), but I think people need to lighten up a bit. As Lurking Horror said, if it's WYSIWYG and I know what special rules you have, what do I care what Codex it is?

Hell, if you can model up a penny with the appropriate base, height, and a meltagun, go ahead and call old Honest Abe a Chaos Chosen. I'll still play you.

When I first started 40K, I happened upon boatloads of Khorne Berserkers for under $1 each on ebay. I snapped up a bunch of them, and never regretted it (although I lost every game for quite some time). Those models gave me a chance to try out the mechanics of the game and get to know a bit about the army at a reasonable price. And now, even though I don't use all of them on a regular basis, I have a nice blood-red tide ready for those games of Apocalypse! =P

Thanks for the article (and the ensuing nostalgia!).

EDIT: No, that "first" above wasn't for being the first to comment!

EDIT 2: Neither were either of the "firsts" in the previous edit. ...Nor this one. Argh.

I don't know thing number one about the topic at hand, but I would like to tip my hat to Abuse for writing such a thorough and detailed reply that (in theory) would likely never have been seen by more than one person. That's dedication!

Things like that make me love this blog.

Personally, I like it. It certainly is fair to say that Daemons should have to do a little something extra to make up for the fact that they literally can't avoid the "Clever Plan" bonus - and, in terms of pushing players to play differently, it would certainly make for some interesting decisions when deep striking the first wave!

I wonder, though, if the randomness of the deep strike scatter would make this unfairly difficult (given that it's something that daemons can't control on the first turn, while all the others seem like something an army can choose to do (or at least equally attempt to set up, in the case of "Attentive Command" and "Everywhere's a Bunker"). However, I suppose they could always use their run moves to make it happen!

Also, for what it's worth, I never would have noticed if I weren't eyeballing starting a Daemons army, and thinking about how I could scoop up all those sweet, sweet points. =P

"do you feel the same way about WW2 american themes even though they dropped two A-bombs on cevillian cities"

Actually, I do in some cases! I think the "mushroom cloud" remains a tasteless and overused symbol in American culture, and, while absolutely acknowledging that 9/11 was a horrible and devastating moment four our country, I thought the use of "Ground Zero" (often used to denote the point of detonation of nuclear weapons, such as the two we dropped on innocent civilians) got used more as a term to rile up sentiment than to connect that atrocity to those we committed.

Edit: I forgot to include that I thought your question was a good one for any American to ask themselves, about so many things that we so easily condemn in other nations.

I really like the idea that Battle Point Modifiers should encourage different thinking and strategy (instead of "hey, have this free stuff for doing what you would normally have to do anyway), and that armies shouldn't be penalized just for things like force org. Many of those

One question, though: wouldn't "Tactical Spacing" automatically place Chaos Daemons at a disadvantage, due to their deployment rules? Or are they allowed to break from Daemonic Assault for these missions?

Forgive me if I've missed something - I'm definitely not a tournament-goer.