I find objective type games better than just Kill.

We think up little scenarios to add that bit extra and it does make a difference.

If you are doing a demo I found that even a few upgrade cards tended to get forgotten in the melee of trying to teach people how to play their first game. At a local show recently I kept forgetting the upgrades as it was hard enough effectively playing for two.

Objective based games seem to be the most fun to play and reduce the furball effect in the middle of the table or around key terrain. We played two games last weekend. In one game a German force centered on 2 Panthers outlasted a duel with an American force centered on a Super Pershing, scoring 3 point to 2 in a game using 2 objectives. Came down to the wire with the remaining Panther getting that last point. The next game, the loser got revenge leading a swarm of T-34's to victory over a gaggle of Panzer IV's in a kill them all type game....the Russian special rule coupled with fast tanks is very useful!

That said, a series of 3 quick games between the same two players might be best. Say, you play one kill them all scenario, one King of the hill with a single objective and finally a 2 objective game. A list with fast tanks probably does best in the 2 objective game, a list with heavy hitters might have the edge in a kill them all type of game. Best of 3 takes the crown. Limit the games to perhaps 45 minutes and consider enforcing reasonable play speed to keep the games fair. A series of varied scenarios will encourage balanced lists, not lists tailored to a particular scenario. I see that as being a positive outcome.

Edited by user Wednesday, October 26, 2016 4:41:25 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified