In ITC's W/L/D system, you're damned the second you lose a game as you can never catch up to someone who goes undefeated, no matter what their margin of victory.
You assume that's unintentional? They specifically moved away from 20pt scoring because it promotes armies designed to table opponents as brutally as possible, to a more objective based game where a good player with a more take all comers army can snatch a win from the former. You can still bring an army designed to table people, but it gets balanced out by forcing you to play to the mission. ITC missions aren't perfect, but you're mistaking a feature for a flaw.
DarkLink wrote: You assume that's unintentional? They specifically moved away from 20pt scoring because it promotes armies designed to table opponents as brutally as possible, to a more objective based game where a good player with a more take all comers army can snatch a win from the former. You can still bring an army designed to table people, but it gets balanced out by forcing you to play to the mission. ITC missions aren't perfect, but you're mistaking a feature for a flaw.
There's a second issue with a straight-victory points format, any time you're dealing with a "progressive" objective mid-game scoring system, which is that it doubles the negative effect of slow play--a longer game will inherently result in more points being scored than a slow game, so if you get slow played, your score is being damaged even if you win (because you won 5-4 while the guy on the next table won 10-9).
There's a middle ground to be had, which is the +/- comparative scoring system Adepticon used last year, which worked really well.
Each player starts with 15 points, and you add/subtract the end-game score differential from there. In the 5-4 vs. 10-9 situation above, both submitted scores would be 16-14. This also eliminates the other worry--people aren't forced to play to grind their opponent into dust, because winning by more than 15 points is irrelevant, and it's usually pretty obvious when you've reached that point. It's a really simple implementation that functions as both a score cap and a score normalizer.
At the LVO you have scale - so you might be able to look at alternatives. This could include splitting the LVO into 2 sub tournaments like Magic's Classic and Standard
1500 point 2:45 hr matches 3 games per day (e Sports format - Standard)
2000 points 4 hr matches 2 games per day (Hard core format - Classic)
(and a 2* 1000 doubles tournament, and a team tournament, and 30k and a narrative event)
RFHolloway wrote: At the LVO you have scale - so you might be able to look at alternatives. This could include splitting the LVO into 2 sub tournaments like Magic's Classic and Standard
1500 point 2:45 hr matches 3 games per day (e Sports format - Standard)
2000 points 4 hr matches 2 games per day (Hard core format - Classic)
(and a 2* 1000 doubles tournament, and a team tournament, and 30k and a narrative event)
The big advantage of making a split like this is the ability to have a different Army Comp for the two events so that all players are welcome, but the Events are appropriately competitive. For instance, you could allow the Tua'nar Supremacy Suite in the 2K Hard Core Format. I would actually advocate you up it to 2,500. Meanwhile the 1500 point format could ban certain problematic formations, and units without fear that players won't be able to play with their toys.
While this is all good in a general case, it only hides the underlying problem that unless they can fit more than three rounds a day, the LVO event is very limited in terms of how many players it can support. Yes, having two formats is good, and would take stress off of one, but one will always be more popular and always runs into the problem we have now.
The other option is to do what Magic basically did when they got too big in their Vegas event and that was to pod the tournament into essentially four regular tournaments that fed into one for day two. Though three rounds isn't really all that much to do that with, though if you do, and can make the rounds short enough, you can make day one the hell day where you play five rounds and top X from each pod make it to day two only. Heck, this wouldn't be needed at all with that many rounds until much later.
Then again, Magic didn't have to do this until they hit over four thousand players in one event.
Ultimately, no matter which way you go, you'll eventually have to increase the number of rounds in the event if you expect it to keep growing. You can only hide it with all these tricks for so long.
Tinkrr wrote: While this is all good in a general case, it only hides the underlying problem that unless they can fit more than three rounds a day, the LVO event is very limited in terms of how many players it can support. Yes, having two formats is good, and would take stress off of one, but one will always be more popular and always runs into the problem we have now.
The other option is to do what Magic basically did when they got too big in their Vegas event and that was to pod the tournament into essentially four regular tournaments that fed into one for day two. Though three rounds isn't really all that much to do that with, though if you do, and can make the rounds short enough, you can make day one the hell day where you play five rounds and top X from each pod make it to day two only. Heck, this wouldn't be needed at all with that many rounds until much later.
Then again, Magic didn't have to do this until they hit over four thousand players in one event.
Ultimately, no matter which way you go, you'll eventually have to increase the number of rounds in the event if you expect it to keep growing. You can only hide it with all these tricks for so long.
How many days did that Magic event run? That is one honkin' number of people!
Ahhhh, slept for about a day, yesterday, finally getting back into the groove.
Thanks for all the awesome feedback, everyone! We're actually quite pleased with our format in terms of round structure as it is and for the foreseeable future. Until we cap 512 players, our current format is mathematically sound. It will result in a top 8 scores, which typically will feature nearly all undefeated players.
As you never get 100% of the bracket full, it does leave room for players with a tie or even a loss to make the finals. This year was bizarre, we had so many ties, far more than in years past, but the system still worked just fine in determining who the top 8 scores were. Even the final game was resolved to the final tie break: victory points, without a hitch.
In that regard, we're quite comfortable with the system. Adding rounds isn't really an option without adding a day to the event. 40k quite simply takes a long time to play, which is one of the biggest limitations of it.
Finishing games is an issue in organized play and always has been. It's just interesting to get the 3rd party perspective from having it streamed to really put a spotlight on it.
For me, the sensible thing to do is go down in points. There are of course pros and cons to that, but in the big picture, I think the pros outweigh the cons. More games finish on time to a natural conclusion, the day doesn't have to be longer than it is. That's a net gain, IMO.
However, everyone likes writing lists at a larger point value. We have seen this trend time and again. It's just ironic that folks then get mad that their games don't finish, haha. You don't get both, unfortunately.
Two days. I think the final number was just under 4.5k, because it had to be capped at that as they didn't have enough judges. It was an impressive event, the biggest I've ever been to.
Well ok, it was three days, day one was check in and a free event (minis masters) for everyone who registered. I opened a free hundred dollar bill in that and paid for dinner with it D:
A suggestion I have come up with is a more detailed score entry system. The system used was fast and super easy, BUT after looking through the records I noticed what looks to be collusion on some games regarding score. Notably at a top table in particular where the players "tied" and somehow each received 7 victory points in a mission that was impossible to receive 7 points on a tie. If you're going to collude and cheat the score system to both make top 8, please cheat better. You know who you are. The scores are on the record. The tie may not have been collusion, but giving each other 7 points was definitely a no-no.
I think putting a system in place where players select the victory conditions from a list would help eliminate the temptation to cheat.
essentially with 512 players or less, after 6 rounds your guaranteed no more than 8 winners of all 6 games.
You do know that shows 9 rounds, at 300 - 512 players...
Six rounds for 64, and seven for 65. It follows Magic's Accelerated Swiss system for selecting Top 8 alone, at every point except the jump from 9 rounds to 10:
CHART FOR APPROPRIATE NUMBER OF ROUNDS OF SWISS TO SELECT THE
TOP 8 PLAYERS FOR SINGLE ELIMINATION:
Number of Players Number of Rounds
17–32 players 5 rounds of Swiss
33–64 6 rounds of Swiss
65–128 7 rounds of Swiss
129–226 8 rounds of Swiss
227–409 9 rounds of Swiss
410+ 10 rounds of Swiss
At six rounds, with 300 people, you have like 5 undefeated and 28 competing for the next best record. That's almost exactly what we saw in the LVO, 6 people undefeated (5-0-1 or better) and then 19 or so people at 5000+ points which is 5-1-0 or 4-0-2, only shrinking slightly if you remove the 4-0-2 people.
So basically their growth goal is "if you lose or tie a round, you're out of contention for top 8."?
That's a super bleak prospect for players, and can be horrifyingly demoralizing :/. You really should aim for a buffer of 1-2 losses for players, as it creates a lot of motivation. I mean that's why in Magic you have the "0-2 drop" bracket, because you're not necessarily out of contention at 0-2 but you're so close to it that you might as well drop and play side events as it's better over all EV. More so, in Magic, events have a day 2 qualifier if they're large enough, so you can go X-2 and make day 2, which you need to qualify for and it's usually only like 200-300 players.
Tinkrr wrote: So basically their growth goal is "if you lose or tie a round, you're out of contention for top 8."?
That's a super bleak prospect for players, and can be horrifyingly demoralizing :/. You really should aim for a buffer of 1-2 losses for players, as it creates a lot of motivation. I mean that's why in Magic you have the "0-2 drop" bracket, because you're not necessarily out of contention at 0-2 but you're so close to it that you might as well drop and play side events as it's better over all EV. More so, in Magic, events have a day 2 qualifier if they're large enough, so you can go X-2 and make day 2, which you need to qualify for and it's usually only like 200-300 players.
Can you point to other 40K events that allow for a 1-2 round buffer for players? We're accustomed to playing in events that are single elimination at best, if not having multiple undefeated players and using battlepoints to determine the winner. Any 3 round RTT would have to cap its player base at 4 players to have a 1 round buffer (and 8 for a natural victor). Most 3 game RTTs are 16+ players. With 2-3 hour games there isn't time to do what you're suggesting.
We could have a world championship for Killteam, but I don't see people clamoring for 400-500 point games.
Tinkrr wrote: So basically their growth goal is "if you lose or tie a round, you're out of contention for top 8."?
That's a super bleak prospect for players, and can be horrifyingly demoralizing :/. You really should aim for a buffer of 1-2 losses for players, as it creates a lot of motivation. I mean that's why in Magic you have the "0-2 drop" bracket, because you're not necessarily out of contention at 0-2 but you're so close to it that you might as well drop and play side events as it's better over all EV. More so, in Magic, events have a day 2 qualifier if they're large enough, so you can go X-2 and make day 2, which you need to qualify for and it's usually only like 200-300 players.
Can you point to other 40K events that allow for a 1-2 round buffer for players? We're accustomed to playing in events that are single elimination at best, if not having multiple undefeated players and using battlepoints to determine the winner. Any 3 round RTT would have to cap its player base at 4 players to have a 1 round buffer (and 8 for a natural victor). Most 3 game RTTs are 16+ players. With 2-3 hour games there isn't time to do what you're suggesting.
We could have a world championship for Killteam, but I don't see people clamoring for 400-500 point games.
With 2:15 hour games you can manage 4 rounds a day. At 7-8 rounds, with 350 people, you at least have a reasonable chance of top 8 being X-1, at 6 rounds there are 6 Players undefeated , and 32 at 5-1, that's a pretty bad chance. At least with 7 rounds, you have 3 undefeated and 19 competing at X-1. I'm just saying, at least 5/19 is much better than 1/16, since one is 6% of the X-1's and the other is 26% of the X-1s. If you push it to 8 rounds, you're looking at 2 undefeated and 10 people at X-1, that's a good feeling, you can lose one and still have a good chance. Even at 400 players you're only going from 10 at X-1 to 13 at X-1.
Time wise, you're looking at 2:15*4 = 9 hour day, as opposed to 2:45*3 = 8:15 hour day... If you drop it down to 1500 points and to 2:15 rounds, you can easily make it much better without exceeding a normal work day in terms of hours played. Yes, there are still things like registration and player meetings, but you can streamline those to be more online based and such, so that you don't have to eat up very much time at all with them.
Edit: And if you're doing 7 rounds, as opposed to 8, it's 9+6:45 = 15:45 hours, versus the current 6 rounds of 16 hours... It's just more inviting to new players, an easier barrier of entry, and a better top 8 break.
GreaterGouda wrote: A suggestion I have come up with is a more detailed score entry system. The system used was fast and super easy, BUT after looking through the records I noticed what looks to be collusion on some games regarding score. Notably at a top table in particular where the players "tied" and somehow each received 7 victory points in a mission that was impossible to receive 7 points on a tie. If you're going to collude and cheat the score system to both make top 8, please cheat better. You know who you are. The scores are on the record. The tie may not have been collusion, but giving each other 7 points was definitely a no-no.
I think putting a system in place where players select the victory conditions from a list would help eliminate the temptation to cheat.
Which mission specifically? Because there are a few (such as Mission 2) where a 7-7 is possible (one player wins Relic, one player wins Maelstorm and both can score Warlord, Line Breaker and First Strike).
GreaterGouda wrote: A suggestion I have come up with is a more detailed score entry system. The system used was fast and super easy, BUT after looking through the records I noticed what looks to be collusion on some games regarding score. Notably at a top table in particular where the players "tied" and somehow each received 7 victory points in a mission that was impossible to receive 7 points on a tie. If you're going to collude and cheat the score system to both make top 8, please cheat better. You know who you are. The scores are on the record. The tie may not have been collusion, but giving each other 7 points was definitely a no-no.
I think putting a system in place where players select the victory conditions from a list would help eliminate the temptation to cheat.
Which mission specifically? Because there are a few (such as Mission 2) where a 7-7 is possible (one player wins Relic, one player wins Maelstorm and both can score Warlord, Line Breaker and First Strike).
No ITC mission can possibly end in a 7-7 draw. There is always a binary tertiary objective (currently.) the relic (mission 2) doesn't have linebreaker. It has table quarters, which you only get the point for by having more table quarters than your opponent.
I saw an 11-3 score on one of the rounds as well, which is another impossible score. I don't think these were malicious though. The players were probably confused on one of the tertiaries and whether or not both players could score it.
GreaterGouda wrote: A suggestion I have come up with is a more detailed score entry system. The system used was fast and super easy, BUT after looking through the records I noticed what looks to be collusion on some games regarding score. Notably at a top table in particular where the players "tied" and somehow each received 7 victory points in a mission that was impossible to receive 7 points on a tie. If you're going to collude and cheat the score system to both make top 8, please cheat better. You know who you are. The scores are on the record. The tie may not have been collusion, but giving each other 7 points was definitely a no-no.
I think putting a system in place where players select the victory conditions from a list would help eliminate the temptation to cheat.
Which mission specifically? Because there are a few (such as Mission 2) where a 7-7 is possible (one player wins Relic, one player wins Maelstorm and both can score Warlord, Line Breaker and First Strike).
No ITC mission can possibly end in a 7-7 draw. There is always a binary tertiary objective (currently.) the relic (mission 2) doesn't have linebreaker. It has table quarters, which you only get the point for by having more table quarters than your opponent.
I saw an 11-3 score on one of the rounds as well, which is another impossible score. I don't think these were malicious though. The players were probably confused on one of the tertiaries and whether or not both players could score it.
There are some weird situations where both players can get a binary point, and in that situation it is possible to tie 7-7. In my last game my opponent and I got simultaneous first blood. that game ended 11-3. But First Blood is the only binary point both players can achieve that I recall. When you cheat at the top you screw over all the other players below. One of the three way tie top 8 guys could have made it if it were not for collusion. If you cheat, cheat smart I guess so I won't catch it.
With 2:15 hour games you can manage 4 rounds a day. At 7-8 rounds, with 350 people, you at least have a reasonable chance of top 8 being X-1, at 6 rounds there are 6 Players undefeated , and 32 at 5-1, that's a pretty bad chance. At least with 7 rounds, you have 3 undefeated and 19 competing at X-1. I'm just saying, at least 5/19 is much better than 1/16, since one is 6% of the X-1's and the other is 26% of the X-1s. If you push it to 8 rounds, you're looking at 2 undefeated and 10 people at X-1, that's a good feeling, you can lose one and still have a good chance. Even at 400 players you're only going from 10 at X-1 to 13 at X-1.
Time wise, you're looking at 2:15*4 = 9 hour day, as opposed to 2:45*3 = 8:15 hour day... If you drop it down to 1500 points and to 2:15 rounds, you can easily make it much better without exceeding a normal work day in terms of hours played. Yes, there are still things like registration and player meetings, but you can streamline those to be more online based and such, so that you don't have to eat up very much time at all with them.
Edit: And if you're doing 7 rounds, as opposed to 8, it's 9+6:45 = 15:45 hours, versus the current 6 rounds of 16 hours... It's just more inviting to new players, an easier barrier of entry, and a better top 8 break.
That's not a bad idea, but I think you're missing a key point about 40k events. 40k isn't Magic, people aren't going to events just to make the finals and win. They go to play against new opponents, see cool armies, enjoy the general convention atmosphere, etc. I'd guess that beyond a small number of ultra-competitive players, people would rather have additional time for their games than try to fit 4 in a day just so one loss doesn't knock you out of contention. I'd go as far as to guess that something like 75% of the people who attended the LVO championships this year had no actual expectation or intention of actually making the top 8, myself included.
Tinkrr wrote: So basically their growth goal is "if you lose or tie a round, you're out of contention for top 8."?
That's a super bleak prospect for players, and can be horrifyingly demoralizing :/. You really should aim for a buffer of 1-2 losses for players, as it creates a lot of motivation. I mean that's why in Magic you have the "0-2 drop" bracket, because you're not necessarily out of contention at 0-2 but you're so close to it that you might as well drop and play side events as it's better over all EV. More so, in Magic, events have a day 2 qualifier if they're large enough, so you can go X-2 and make day 2, which you need to qualify for and it's usually only like 200-300 players.
They're trying to build an actual, genuine, competitive tournament league, not run a kindergarten soccer league with participation trophies for everyone. If you go to compete, you need to accept that if you want to win, you need to, y'know, win. If you go to a tournament to purely have fun and not care about winning, then you need to expect that you probably won't take top 8.
Moreover, this is not magic. In magic, luck of the draw means even a good player with a good deck can lose purely on luck, far more frequently than in 40k. Magic events need to be designed to allow enough rounds to accomodate that. 40k is much less susceptible to this, and due to the length of the games it's impracticle to have a sufficient number of rounds to run it like a mafic tournament. Magic is a poor comparison in that regard.
With 2:15 hour games you can manage 4 rounds a day. At 7-8 rounds, with 350 people, you at least have a reasonable chance of top 8 being X-1, at 6 rounds there are 6 Players undefeated , and 32 at 5-1, that's a pretty bad chance. At least with 7 rounds, you have 3 undefeated and 19 competing at X-1. I'm just saying, at least 5/19 is much better than 1/16, since one is 6% of the X-1's and the other is 26% of the X-1s. If you push it to 8 rounds, you're looking at 2 undefeated and 10 people at X-1, that's a good feeling, you can lose one and still have a good chance. Even at 400 players you're only going from 10 at X-1 to 13 at X-1.
Time wise, you're looking at 2:15*4 = 9 hour day, as opposed to 2:45*3 = 8:15 hour day... If you drop it down to 1500 points and to 2:15 rounds, you can easily make it much better without exceeding a normal work day in terms of hours played. Yes, there are still things like registration and player meetings, but you can streamline those to be more online based and such, so that you don't have to eat up very much time at all with them.
Edit: And if you're doing 7 rounds, as opposed to 8, it's 9+6:45 = 15:45 hours, versus the current 6 rounds of 16 hours... It's just more inviting to new players, an easier barrier of entry, and a better top 8 break.
That's not a bad idea, but I think you're missing a key point about 40k events. 40k isn't Magic, people aren't going to events just to make the finals and win. They go to play against new opponents, see cool armies, enjoy the general convention atmosphere, etc. I'd guess that beyond a small number of ultra-competitive players, people would rather have additional time for their games than try to fit 4 in a day just so one loss doesn't knock you out of contention. I'd go as far as to guess that something like 75% of the people who attended the LVO championships this year had no actual expectation or intention of actually making the top 8, myself included.
First of all, can I has yo' list and placing for the data base?
Second of all, Magic is very much the same for most people, in fact I'm guessing something like 3000 people at that event didn't expect to get to the top 8, but I'm sure it helped a lot to feel like you have at least a shot of making day 2 until you lose three games, which takes quite a while. I don't generally go to win the event, I went hoping to well day 2 at best, which only something like 400 people make out of 4000, but that only requires going X-2 day one. Trust me, even if you don't go to an event to win, you get really pumped when you're looking at it and you might just make it after a few rounds, when you still have that buffer, and you just feel awesome. That's the carrot on a stick that grows events, that little bit of hope that you might just be the X-2 that makes it, or maybe the X-1-1, or even if you just place in prize which is paid out to at least the top 64 in magic.
I mean it would be insane to go into an event with thousands of people and truly expect to win it, but the more rounds you have, the more chances you have of playing games you can win. Even if you think of it as just going for fun, right now if one round in the day is simply bad for you 33% of your day's event is just scrapped, whereas in Magic, it's ok if you lose a round to something bad, you'll always have more. Just imagine how it must feel to be Nick Nanavati, you win round one with 6 points so you're already at a bad start and then have a bad game two, you're pretty much out of the tournament. I'm not saying he was the only one wronged in that, but the impact of a single game going in that poor of a manner feels a whole lot worse when there are 6 rounds instead of 8 rounds.
The impact of the mental aspect of having so few rounds in so many days, should really be considered. Here's another thing to consider, if you make day 1 hell day, as in it's 5 rounds of 2:15 hour games, that can in fact draw in a lot of people who don't expect to win the event. It's a lot easier to look at something like the LVO, plan to attend day 1 for the super hardcore gaming and get it all out then, and then drop for day 2 when you scrub out and go have fun in Vegas. That's a major draw to a lot of these two day Magic events, you burn out day one and then have fun where ever your traveled to on day 2 when you didn't make it. Also you can totally have day 1 be those 5 painful rounds, then day 2 is a total of 3 rounds, which are now shorter in time, meaning you free up more time for players who do play day 2 to have fun in Vegas. I'm completely serious, letting people get their fill of 40k in day 1 if they so plan, can go a long way to attracting newer more relaxed players. Magic does much the same in that day 1 is like 10 rounds and day 2 is 6 rounds.
Tinkrr wrote: So basically their growth goal is "if you lose or tie a round, you're out of contention for top 8."?
That's a super bleak prospect for players, and can be horrifyingly demoralizing :/. You really should aim for a buffer of 1-2 losses for players, as it creates a lot of motivation. I mean that's why in Magic you have the "0-2 drop" bracket, because you're not necessarily out of contention at 0-2 but you're so close to it that you might as well drop and play side events as it's better over all EV. More so, in Magic, events have a day 2 qualifier if they're large enough, so you can go X-2 and make day 2, which you need to qualify for and it's usually only like 200-300 players.
They're trying to build an actual, genuine, competitive tournament league, not run a kindergarten soccer league with participation trophies for everyone. If you go to compete, you need to accept that if you want to win, you need to, y'know, win. If you go to a tournament to purely have fun and not care about winning, then you need to expect that you probably won't take top 8.
Moreover, this is not magic. In magic, luck of the draw means even a good player with a good deck can lose purely on luck, far more frequently than in 40k. Magic events need to be designed to allow enough rounds to accomodate that. 40k is much less susceptible to this, and due to the length of the games it's impracticle to have a sufficient number of rounds to run it like a mafic tournament. Magic is a poor comparison in that regard.
We're not talking about participation trophies, we're talking about making it an actual competitive sport where one bad game based on luck doesn't knock you out completely. The less rounds, the more luck impacts the tournament.
Yes, the game with countless dice rolls on both sides, all kinds of random abilities and conditions, and so forth, is less random than the game where the only random aspect is what you draw and then have full decision making after that. I always enjoy how condescending you are, so please, let me roll for the mana cost of my Lightning Bolt, then roll for how much damage it deals to you, and now you can roll for how much damage you negate. Seriously, the random factor in magic is significantly less over three games per round in comparison to 40k.
With 2:15 hour games you can manage 4 rounds a day.
We could do 30 min rounds and have 20 rounds a day with plenty of time for lunch, too. But 40k plays at certain point sizes, and those point sizes necessitate minimum time limits. The format used in 40k events is dictated by practicality, not by what magic tournaments do.
You must be new to competitive 40k as a concept, which is no big deal. It is not possible to run double elimination 40k tournaments unless you extended out the entire event another day or two, the game takes too long. Every major event runs on essentially a single elimination format. It's just the way it is. The math on it is super simple, just take a look at any single elimination tournament bracket format. It's nothing new.
That's why we have Best Of awards as it gives you something to fight it out for if you aren't in the hunt to win it all.
Battle Points is an alternative that theoretically allows you to lose a game and stay in the hunt but it also encourages a very brutal style of play that turns many players off, and you can have situations where someone can go into the final game already having won the event. Swiss, single elimination has risen to the top as the preferred format because it works. And, as you will almost never have a full bracket, there is always at least a few folks that make it into the finals without a perfect score. It's actually more forgiving that it looks on paper. Perfect example, LVO this year had a single undefeated player going into the finals. The more of a gap between where you are and the top end attendance of the bracket, the more players that make the cut without a perfect record.
And we used to run 4 round days, it sucked, honestly. Too much 40k. The current system is what we've arrived at after years of trial and error. Of course it is not perfect, but it's come out of a lot of practice as the most enjoyed format.
And Sean is correct, while extremely rare, you can get a situation where both players tie the binary tertiary point. However, it almost never occurs.
We're not talking about participation trophies, we're talking about making it an actual competitive sport where one bad game based on luck doesn't knock you out completely. The less rounds, the more luck impacts the tournament.
Yes, the game with countless dice rolls on both sides, all kinds of random abilities and conditions, and so forth, is less random than the game where the only random aspect is what you draw and then have full decision making after that. I always enjoy how condescending you are, so please, let me roll for the mana cost of my Lightning Bolt, then roll for how much damage it deals to you, and now you can roll for how much damage you negate. Seriously, the random factor in magic is significantly less over three games per round in comparison to 40k.
Hey, I'm just trying to explain why 40k tournaments are run the way they are, because you seem genuinely unfamiliar with why. Nothing more, nothing less.
And, yes, the law of averages dictates that the random elements of 40k have a minimal effect on the outcome. A good player with a good list will beat a worse player with a worse list pretty much every time. I don't play magic, but I've know a few pro magic players who said that even the best players wouldn't win all of their games, they just win most of them, say 60-70%. Since the same applies to poker, it seems quite reasonable to me, but I could be wrong I'm not going to tell a magic player how magic works. On the other hand, the best 40k players will win 90+% of their games, and their losses are primarily due to bad matchups rather than bad luck. Combined with the practical issues involved, 40k is almost universally 3 rounds a day, and it won't change anytime soon.
Tinkrr wrote: So here's a question then, what happens two years down the line when you do hit that 512 number?
I'd imagine you would have 512 folks that have a great time in Vegas, and a bunch of whiners on the internet complain about the latest ITC vote that "nerfed" their favorite army, while others continue to opine about point levels and time limits. Maybe by then the nerfed army will be the Pan Fo, as they will truly be reviled.
Tinkrr wrote: So here's a question then, what happens two years down the line when you do hit that 512 number?
Everyone is thrilled because it means that GW hasn't killed 40K. But the reality is that the games changes a fair bit every 1-2 years, so why try to solve a problem that may not exist 2 years before it might occur?
And Sean is correct, while extremely rare, you can get a situation where both players tie the binary tertiary point. However, it almost never occurs.
I am not trying to dig in the dirt here, but doesn't a draw mean neither player earns the point? Why are situations where both players tie for a binary point treated differently than situations where both players tie on the primary or secondary mission?
I think something in the ITC rules to handle these situations would be helpful. Myself and many others seemed to have missed the above interpretations of binary points.
Reecius wrote: And Sean is correct, while extremely rare, you can get a situation where both players tie the binary tertiary point. However, it almost never occurs.
When did that change? At every ITC event I've ever been to, if the unique point is a tie then neither player scores it. I swear you've discussed on the twitch stream exactly this scenario dealing with table quarters on Mission #2, and said that neither player scored it. If I recall you were playing your Airborne AM list vs Eldar.
It is a scenario that comes up frequently enough, especially on Mission #2 (Table Quaters), and Mission #5 (King of the Hill). I'll bet everyone in this thread has seen it come up at an event at least once. Am I the only one that didn't realize this is how it works now?
What happens with King of the Hill if neither player has any units within 6" of the center? They both get the point, I assume since that would tie them 0-0. How many players do you think missed out on scoring a point they had earned at LVO because they didn't know that failure by either side to complete this objective meant both sides complete it?
And we used to run 4 round days, it sucked, honestly. Too much 40k. The current system is what we've arrived at after years of trial and error. Of course it is not perfect, but it's come out of a lot of practice as the most enjoyed format.
And Sean is correct, while extremely rare, you can get a situation where both players tie the binary tertiary point. However, it almost never occurs.
I'll echo what Reece said, 4 round days are pretty brutal, and by the end of it you've been playing 40k straight, not including breaks, for a solid 10 hours. By the end of it you're exhausted, you don't feel like going out and doing much, you wake up, do it again, and then go home - and you miss out on a place like Vegas.
The extreme of this idea was attempted by NOVA in their first year doing the invitational, and it was a noble goal - take the most competitive (that could come and qualified) 32 people and run 5 rounds in one day so they could still participate in the GT (another 8 rounds, 4 each day). We came, we played, we ground it out. End of the day I think almost all of us ended up at a buffalo wild wings around 1130pm because we hadn't had time for much of a dinner and it was the only place still open. We'd gotten there to set up/do reg. at 7am. I think it was unanimous that all of us wanted to drop the GT that started the next day we were so burnt, but we of course ended up playing. For most of us that invitational, while plenty of us supported it as a concept beforehand, was a lesson in what too much 40k is. It really, really, really detracted from the enjoyment of the event, and the NOVA staff learned from it and listened, and it wasn't attempted again.
I think the current missions could probably be improved a bit (mostly the maelstrom component could use a few tweaks) and if that wasn't desired you could also just tweak how things are scored to result in less ties - that would get rid of what happened this year. I think most of us accept that in a swiss style event with this many players, a loss means we're out except for a glimmer of hope if we do really well and sneak in.
I am not trying to dig in the dirt here, but doesn't a draw mean neither player earns the point? Why are situations where both players tie for a binary point treated differently than situations where both players tie on the primary or secondary mission?
I think something in the ITC rules to handle these situations would be helpful. Myself and many others seemed to have missed the above interpretations of binary points.
Last year's BAO, my opponent and I had Imperial Knights mutually kill each other at initiative 4, and we were told that we both earned first blood.
It's already been noted a few times but just to reinforce it - by far my least favorite experience at an event was one that did a 4-round day. Absolutely killer. And when you're that tired, it's much easier to have a "bad game" where you can't enjoy playing / end up getting into a needless rules dispute / etc. 3 rounds per day all the way!
Lowering point levels would just make those 3 rounds more manageable, as even now it's a bit of a slog for a multi-day event. But fitting in another round is definitely not the goal!
somerandomidiot wrote: Last year's BAO, my opponent and I had Imperial Knights mutually kill each other at initiative 4, and we were told that we both earned first blood.
1st blood going that way is RAW (BRB page 133), though I didn't realize it until just now. +1 for GW for anticipating such a situation.
King of the Hill and Table Quarters are not:
Table Quarters: The player with the most scoring or denial units that are more than 50% in a table quarter controls that quarter. The player that controls the most table quarters wins this point.
King of the Hill: The player with the most scoring or denial units at least partially within 6″ of the center point of the table wins this point.
If I have 2 apples, and Somerandomiot has 2 apples. Which one of us has the most apples? Based on what I remember from 3rd grade math, the correct answer is that neither of us have the Most apples. Because we have the same number of apples.
Big Game Hunter, might be more confusing.
Big Game Hunter: At the end of the game, of all destroyed units, the player that destroyed the unit worth the most points wins this point.
Because the sample set is larger, and thus some units are indeed worth more than some other units, it might be possible to conclude that there could be 2 units worth the most points. After consulting a dictionary definition of Most: "greatest in quantity, extent, or degree", it doesn't clarify things too much. It could be a case of a Vernacular difference.
Either way, I'd like to know exactly how to score myself, and clarify it to others that attend events when I'm TO.
To quote your dictionary response greatest in quantity. If you have 2 and I have 2 than both having 2 we both have the most. Neither of us has more than the other. More denotes degree. Most can be a fixed quantity.
To take it a step outside the mission set. If I collect 12 apples and you collect 12 apples and jimmy has 3. When the third grade teacher asks who collected the most apples you and I would both raise our hands. Jimmy wouldn't win just because we collected the same number. If she asked us who had more we would have to say neither but still get to point at jimmy laugh and say we have more than he does.
OrdoSean wrote: To quote your dictionary response greatest in quantity. If you have 2 and I have 2 than both having 2 we both have the most. Neither of us has more than the other. More denotes degree. Most can be a fixed quantity.
To take it a step outside the mission set. If I collect 12 apples and you collect 12 apples and jimmy has 3. When the third grade teacher asks who collected the most apples you and I would both raise our hands. Jimmy wouldn't win just because we collected the same number. If she asked us who had more we would have to say neither but still get to point at jimmy laugh and say we have more than he does.
For Primary and Secondary mission scoring the ITC rules specifically call out ties as resulting in neither player getting any points. Yet for Tertiary points we bust out the dictionary to find out what happens? Consistency might be the hobgoblin of the little minds, but it sure makes it easier to arrive to an agreement among hundreds of people.
OrdoSean wrote: To quote your dictionary response greatest in quantity. If you have 2 and I have 2 than both having 2 we both have the most. Neither of us has more than the other. More denotes degree. Most can be a fixed quantity.
To take it a step outside the mission set. If I collect 12 apples and you collect 12 apples and jimmy has 3. When the third grade teacher asks who collected the most apples you and I would both raise our hands. Jimmy wouldn't win just because we collected the same number. If she asked us who had more we would have to say neither but still get to point at jimmy laugh and say we have more than he does.
Most is both a determiner and a pronoun. Unfortunately it has common definitions and usage as both expressing degree and fixed values. It is a poor choice of word to use when specificity is called for.
In your school example I believe that you'd get as many people to say that they both have the most as neither has the most, but everyone would agree that they have more than poor Jimmy, who sucks at collecting apples, but who probably has more than Timmay!
Tinkrr wrote: So here's a question then, what happens two years down the line when you do hit that 512 number?
Instead of about 400 people doing the meercat/prairie dog, about 600+ will look up when I bellow Julio's name ... or whoever it is I pull for a match Round 2, X # of beers in.
OrdoSean wrote: To quote your dictionary response greatest in quantity. If you have 2 and I have 2 than both having 2 we both have the most. Neither of us has more than the other. More denotes degree. Most can be a fixed quantity.
Greatest in quantity. In order to be Greater in quantity, something must also be less in quantity. You are essentially making the semantic argument that "Most" to you means something slightly different than it does to me, which is very possible. It could very well be, and we could both be correct based on a differing vernacular, but we can't both be right on how it is supposed to be played in the ITC.
It would surprise me that every ITC event I've ever attended or TO'd has scored it wrong, but I guess it is possible.
RiTides wrote: It's already been noted a few times but just to reinforce it - by far my least favorite experience at an event was one that did a 4-round day. Absolutely killer. And when you're that tired, it's much easier to have a "bad game" where you can't enjoy playing / end up getting into a needless rules dispute / etc. 3 rounds per day all the way!
Lowering point levels would just make those 3 rounds more manageable, as even now it's a bit of a slog for a multi-day event. But fitting in another round is definitely not the goal!
We ran a local 4 round 1250 tournament which worked well due to the smaller game size. 4 1250 games is about the same time frame as 3 1850s. But I don't see normal 40k switching to 1250 anytime soon. 1750 and 1850 is definitely too much for some people. I don't mind it generally, but I've been to enough 4 game events and you can notice the attitude shift after the third game. When it's 7pm and you're starting your 4th game, you will hear a lot of "screw this, I'm ready to go grab dinner and just hang out".
A draw is pretty much a win as long as you don't lose a game so I don't know why people are complaining about how many pts they got in a draw. Going 5 wins and a draw pretty much guarantees you a top 8 spot.
Perfect example, LVO this year had a single undefeated player going into the finals. The more of a gap between where you are and the top end attendance of the bracket, the more players that make the cut without a perfect record.
Slightly pedantic point but actually there were 7 undefeated players going into the top 8. 7 players who had not lost a game. There was only one who had won all 6.
Fortunately (for me) he crashed out in the semi-finals which means I'm still the only player to win the LVO by winning all of their games
Alex is actually one of the only truly undefeated winners we've had, so kudos to you!
@Thread
So, obviously there's some ambiguity on tertiary points but as we are updating our missions for the new season, this is a great opportunity to address any concerns and update verbiage where needed.
@Tinkrr
If we hit 512 in the room playing 40k at the same time in a championship event, we pop champagne and dance a victory jig!
Sorry if you feel like everyone's digging on you a bit, it's not at all personal, just that we've been having these same discussions for years. We all just accepted that single elimination is the only format that works within the confines of 40k. However, as stated, it never actually works out that way as you never (or very rarely) actually have a 100% full bracket. So, you still have some wiggle room with a tie or even a loss.
Yeah, we're going to update them for the new season. We're looking at some of the cool mission design elements form other events, too, to incorporate into the ITC for the new season.
Perfect example, LVO this year had a single undefeated player going into the finals. The more of a gap between where you are and the top end attendance of the bracket, the more players that make the cut without a perfect record.
Slightly pedantic point but actually there were 7 undefeated players going into the top 8. 7 players who had not lost a game. There was only one who had won all 6.
Fortunately (for me) he crashed out in the semi-finals which means I'm still the only player to win the LVO by winning all of their games
It's pedantic but an important point.
When will the voting begin? IIRC, I think they mentioned friday on the last youtube frontline video. I'm curious to see if the community will vote to return to 1500pts as a standard that we haven't commonly seen since 3rd edition as a tourny game size. It might help curb some of the astartes cheesiness inherent in the marine welfare armies since you can't get all the free stuff AND the flavorful toys outside of the prereq units.
I am not trying to dig in the dirt here, but doesn't a draw mean neither player earns the point? Why are situations where both players tie for a binary point treated differently than situations where both players tie on the primary or secondary mission?
I think something in the ITC rules to handle these situations would be helpful. Myself and many others seemed to have missed the above interpretations of binary points.
Good question and great point. Everyone and their opponent should ask the event TO when you hand in your score sheets together to make sure you did it right. Just in case one event TO does it different than another. Also, ask before the tournament so that it can get announced to everyone (and ignored by 73.4%). Not my first rodeo!
So I hate to be a broken record, but what was determined weapons arc for the Tesla Spheres on the Obelisk? Having at least a single FAQ in that regard might lead me to purchase one.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: So I hate to be a broken record, but what was determined weapons arc for the Tesla Spheres on the Obelisk? Having at least a single FAQ in that regard might lead me to purchase one.
I played Jonathan Camacho at the LVO, and he was using them as 180 degree firing arcs (which allowed him to fire 2 at a single target, or 3 if it was large enough, like my Imperial Knights), and that seemed reasonable. I believe he said that he'd been told to play them as 180 degrees, but I don't remember specifically. You can submit the question via the ITC rules submission form (https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1W8A22qTts0p9CIkhxZIefmicHr7J2RoWlJmPqGQFiZo/viewform).
To be fair to MSU spam though, only 1 made it to t8. That third round KP mission with base tertiaries was a pretty effective firewall at shutting down BCs. From what I gather very few made it through that with a win.
somerandomidiot wrote: I played Jonathan Camacho at the LVO, and he was using them as 180 degree firing arcs (which allowed him to fire 2 at a single target, or 3 if it was large enough, like my Imperial Knights), and that seemed reasonable. I believe he said that he'd been told to play them as 180 degrees, but I don't remember specifically. You can submit the question via the ITC rules submission form (https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1W8A22qTts0p9CIkhxZIefmicHr7J2RoWlJmPqGQFiZo/viewform).
I played Jonathan at Texas Wargamescon, and he was using them as 180 degree firing arcs then as well. It worked pretty good. I think it is a pretty reasonable way to go.
We were officially responding to Tesla Sphere fire arc questions that they could measure 45 degrees from any point of the spheres, treating the entire thing as the barrel. We'll add it to the FAQ.
The new vote will be ready to rock at the end of the week, we will be going over a lot of ground, there's a lot of new material in there including the Tau Ghostkeels, the Piranha formation some Corsairs stuff, format issues with points levels for large events, etc. It will be bigger than most of our votes typically are.
I actually didn't mean that to come across as "You weren't around earlier" just that it's really evident that as soon as you guys recovered from LVO you've jumped on the issues people wanted to see addressed, which is awesome!
It has a strategic deck building aspect, the "mission" can't get away from you in one turn, it gives each faction a way to achieve goals that are based on its play style.
The last part of that resonates the most with me as I play IG. My army is hugely disadvantaged with objectives like "score enemy's objective" as I'm not likely to get there. However if my army is supposed to issue an order to get a point, I can certainly do that. Mobility is still very important for a lot of the card missions, but at least I'm not out of it completely from the word "go".
Reecius wrote: The new vote will be ready to rock at the end of the week, we will be going over a lot of ground, there's a lot of new material in there including the Tau Ghostkeels, the Piranha formation some Corsairs stuff, format issues with points levels for large events, etc. It will be bigger than most of our votes typically are.
That is awesome. We really appreciate all of the work you do, and for me personally (running a GT in a couple months), it is super helpful that this vote happens so quickly.
Neutral wording and keeping to attempting to clarify rules would be wise given the reaction to recent developments. (Ie. The backlash against the use of "how would you like X played")
Eldarain wrote: Neutral wording and keeping to attempting to clarify rules would be wise given the reaction to recent developments. (Ie. The backlash against the use of "how would you like X played")
I echo this sentiment. The most recent ITC polls have felt too intrusive into the rules and game mechanics for my liking.
We will take a look at that. We're listening to all feedback about restructuring the missions at this point in time.
@tag883
Happy to help, man. Running a 40k event without some type of help is a daunting proposition at this point in time. If we work together, it's a lot easier to do.
@Eldarain
No matter what we do, no matter how we word the questions, accusations of bias/unfairness/etc. will fly. It is unavoidable and I simply accept it will never be perfect, although we always try to do things in as transparent and fair of a way as possible.
@Overwatch
You're just sore that the Tank Shock thing didn't go the way you wanted it to, buddy! haha
Has there been any thought on how powerful going 2nd is in the current objective driven game? Where someone who can effectively be getting stomped all game can just last minute on to objectives for a win? Perhaps scoring Maelstrom at the end of each player turn instead of game turn?
WrentheFaceless wrote: Has there been any thought on how powerful going 2nd is in the current objective driven game? Where someone who can effectively be getting stomped all game can just last minute on to objectives for a win? Perhaps scoring Maelstrom at the end of each player turn instead of game turn?
At end of player turn sucks, because it means there is no rebuttal for either player. Makes maelstrom too easy, IMO. The better solution, IMO, is to have players score them at the beginning of their turn, beginning turn 2 (similar to what NOVA does with its progressive mission scoring). I'd highly recommend this route as it means that both players will get the opportunity to react to their opponent.
I think this would help balance out going 1st/2nd, youd still have an advantage going 2nd (final say on objectives) but it wouldnt be as obvious a choice. I know Reece and ITC mostly seems to think that going 1st/2nd is fairly balanced, but its not at all. All armies i've been playing against recently in ITC choose to go 2nd, especially now that there are super efficient ways to protect against alpha strikes (void shield...).
Agreed with above. I think scoring your maelstrom points at the start of your following turn would be much more balanced. Also, second player rolls to begin his turn, not game turn, to mitigate first turn getting two turns to counter their opponent's maelstrom point.
It's definitely amusing that the BC vs BC battles pretty much entirely came down to who went second. I went first (playing BC) vs one and pretty much barely clawed my way to a tie with insane luck (made 8 3++ saves?). My opponent then proceeded to face another BC, went first and promptly lost.
somerandomidiot wrote: I played Jonathan Camacho at the LVO, and he was using them as 180 degree firing arcs (which allowed him to fire 2 at a single target, or 3 if it was large enough, like my Imperial Knights), and that seemed reasonable. I believe he said that he'd been told to play them as 180 degrees, but I don't remember specifically. You can submit the question via the ITC rules submission form (https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1W8A22qTts0p9CIkhxZIefmicHr7J2RoWlJmPqGQFiZo/viewform).
I played Jonathan at Texas Wargamescon, and he was using them as 180 degree firing arcs then as well. It worked pretty good. I think it is a pretty reasonable way to go.
Yeah, Eldar vs. Eldar, or reserve army vs. reserve army often comes down to who goes second regardless of format. The real issue is the IGOUGO format more so than anything, but that is obviously not easily fixed.
We are open to altering the mission structure (and plan on doing it, actually). Any ideas and feedback are appreciated. We've been looking at exactly the change described, actually, of pushing back the scoring a player turn to give both players time to counter the other player.
Really all you need for the vsg is to say it only covers models partially within its' bubble, not the whole squad. I myself got hit with a 36inch conga-line of a deathstar that was fully covered by a vsg.
Though even saying "partially" brings up toe-in which is another area of silly, though probably a more contentious one. We could start by just making MCs/GMCs be treated like vehicles and keep troops as is. Dunno.
I would love to see toe in cover come to a vote this poll.
But hopefully the question seperate a gmc and mc. it would effectively hurt most MC to much imho. Most GMC on the other hand could use the nerf. Maybe remove the extra VP for GMC and SH if toe in cover is removed.
Id also like to see hunter contingent Come to a vote again.
See army point sizes revote to be reduced. 1750 or 1500. I prefer 1750
I think a large ITC vote is needed this time to address a lot of recent changes.
Love to see some of the mission changes there are some great mission ideas out there like etc or even the new GW card ideas coming next week.
I don't do ITC but i read up on some of the stuff that was "voted" on and a lot of it seems really weird or downright wrong, so here goes:
Void Shield Generator
If anything needs to change consider that the VSG rule should apply to models under the shield, not units, to prevent absurd congalines etc.
Ranged D Revoke, that nerf has run its course.
Invisibility Revoke it, why not? Nova, Stomps, HoW, Barrage, Culexus etc there are numerous ways to handle it. Shooty armies suffer the most from Invis so e.g. Tau which people seems to have crazy bias against anyway so here's a tool for you
Tau Revoke Hunter Contingent nerf.
Revoke Ghostkeel nerf
Revoke Piranha Firestream nerf
Revoke change to Stormsurge tank shock. It is irrelevant due to Unstoppable, Gargantuan Creature rule.
Revoke Markerlights not hitting units when shooting through a Void Shield nerf.
Torrent Hellstorm Weapons Allow, because why not?
ForgeWorld Just allow it all, there is no Experimental or 40K approved stamp anymore, it's all "Legal".
I also ask how are you gonna deal with the VSG? that thing is way to prevalent and just breaks the game
We treat it like a vehicle / building. So all special weapon types and rules work against it - haywire, melta, gauss, tank hunter etc. That's how it used to be run until the ITC faq made a ruling on it. It remains a powerful defensive choice but now there are ways for opponents to deal with it.
X078 wrote: I don't do ITC but i read up on some of the stuff that was "voted" on and a lot of it seems really weird or downright wrong, so here goes:
I love the ITC's more tempered approach to things. In my local tournaments and in my gaming group, I found it made things more competitive and there was a better sense of balance in the game. Personally, I think they are taking the right direction in most things and it has definitely helped out my local scene.
X078 wrote: Ranged D Revoke, that nerf has run its course.
Who is the only one with ranged D? Eldar... How has this nerf run its course? The tournaments are full of Eldar. Can you imagine how much less army diversity there would be if they revoked the D nerf?
X078 wrote: ForgeWorld Just allow it all, there is no Experimental or 40K approved stamp anymore, it's all "Legal".
I think allowing FW experimental rules are already in the works. I love FW, just like the next guy, but I really hope they don't go through with allowing experimental rules. Some experimental units are just too rediculously good. They invalidate other army options. :S
X078 wrote: I don't do ITC but i read up on some of the stuff that was "voted" on and a lot of it seems really weird or downright wrong, so here goes:
Void Shield Generator
If anything needs to change consider that the VSG rule should apply to models under the shield, not units, to prevent absurd congalines etc.
Ranged D Revoke, that nerf has run its course.
Invisibility Revoke it, why not? Nova, Stomps, HoW, Barrage, Culexus etc there are numerous ways to handle it. Shooty armies suffer the most from Invis so e.g. Tau which people seems to have crazy bias against anyway so here's a tool for you
Tau Revoke Hunter Contingent nerf.
Revoke Ghostkeel nerf
Revoke Piranha Firestream nerf
Revoke change to Stormsurge tank shock. It is irrelevant due to Unstoppable, Gargantuan Creature rule.
Revoke Markerlights not hitting units when shooting through a Void Shield nerf.
Torrent Hellstorm Weapons Allow, because why not?
ForgeWorld Just allow it all, there is no Experimental or 40K approved stamp anymore, it's all "Legal".
The void shield specifically says units
Range d is already unnerfed except for a 6 roll doesn't cause max 12 wounds/hull and only 6 instead hardly a nerf.
Invis is still the most broken ability in game.
There is no revoking it's votes and ghostkeel and piranha are being voted on
storm surge is pretty clear rule wise and marker lights are a shooting atk but your bias is pretty clear when your example is remove it just because you don't like it.
To be fair I don't know enough about torrent hellstorm units to care.
Forgeworld including experimental are already allowed regardless of what you think is "legal"
I also ask how are you gonna deal with the VSG? that thing is way to prevalent and just breaks the game
We treat it like a vehicle / building. So all special weapon types and rules work against it - haywire, melta, gauss, tank hunter etc. That's how it used to be run until the ITC faq made a ruling on it. It remains a powerful defensive choice but now there are ways for opponents to deal with it.
I agree with this. VSG is way too ubiquitous otherwise.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Invis isn't really anymore or less broken with ITC modifier. Those units are still all but invincible and should never be engaged. The Invis nerf does not change my strategy for engaging those sorts of units In the slightest. I def. don't see the point of the nerf on that or rerolls of 2+.
With regard to considering a point reduction vs. implementing incentives (and dis-incentives) for timely play, perhaps it is time to introduce the concept of the 'Reserve' section of a tournament. Since we've already looked at chess clocks, let's look at how chess tournaments are organized. A chess tournament of any decent size has two sections: Open and Reserve. Reserve players are grouped with other players in their rating range where players in the Open are in the mix with everyone (Grandmasters and U1400 alike). Yes, the Reserve is divided into even smaller subsections, but let's ignore that aspect as it doesn't translate to 40K.
The winner of the Open is the tournament champion. The winner of the Reserve section is the reserve section champion.... Prize support is awarded accordingly. When you sign up, you choose which section you want to play in. Perhaps the Open is 1850 with strict incentives/dis-incentives (and clocks/timers) while the Reserves is 1500 points. Games are scheduled for the same amount of time, whether in the Open or in the Reserves. If you choose to play in the Open section, you are accepting a higher standard of play (efficiency-wise, etc.). If you are a newer or more casually minded player, you are encouraged to play in the Reserve section.
DCannon4Life wrote: With regard to considering a point reduction vs. implementing incentives (and dis-incentives) for timely play, perhaps it is time to introduce the concept of the 'Reserve' section of a tournament. Since we've already looked at chess clocks, let's look at how chess tournaments are organized. A chess tournament of any decent size has two sections: Open and Reserve. Reserve players are grouped with other players in their rating range where players in the Open are in the mix with everyone (Grandmasters and U1400 alike). Yes, the Reserve is divided into even smaller subsections, but let's ignore that aspect as it doesn't translate to 40K.
The winner of the Open is the tournament champion. The winner of the Reserve section is the reserve section champion.... Prize support is awarded accordingly. When you sign up, you choose which section you want to play in. Perhaps the Open is 1850 with strict incentives/dis-incentives (and clocks/timers) while the Reserves is 1500 points. Games are scheduled for the same amount of time, whether in the Open or in the Reserves. If you choose to play in the Open section, you are accepting a higher standard of play (efficiency-wise, etc.). If you are a newer or more casually minded player, you are encouraged to play in the Reserve section.
Invisibility
Revoke it, why not? Nova, Stomps, HoW, Barrage, Culexus etc there are numerous ways to handle it. Shooty armies suffer the most from Invis so e.g. Tau which people seems to have crazy bias against anyway so here's a tool for you
Welp, I guess I'll be quitting 40k and playing infinity then. Even with the nerfs I've had far too many games ruined by terrible mechanics like D and Invis and stomp, and I've played plenty of games with unnerfed D and Invis and they are straight up miserable.
We will take a look at that. We're listening to all feedback about restructuring the missions at this point in time.
@tag883
Happy to help, man. Running a 40k event without some type of help is a daunting proposition at this point in time. If we work together, it's a lot easier to do.
@Eldarain
No matter what we do, no matter how we word the questions, accusations of bias/unfairness/etc. will fly. It is unavoidable and I simply accept it will never be perfect, although we always try to do things in as transparent and fair of a way as possible.
@Overwatch
You're just sore that the Tank Shock thing didn't go the way you wanted it to, buddy! haha
Nuh Uh! (Said in whiny teenager voice)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
X078 wrote: I don't do ITC but i read up on some of the stuff that was "voted" on and a lot of it seems really weird or downright wrong, so here goes:
Void Shield Generator If anything needs to change consider that the VSG rule should apply to models under the shield, not units, to prevent absurd congalines etc.
Ranged D Revoke, that nerf has run its course.
Invisibility Revoke it, why not? Nova, Stomps, HoW, Barrage, Culexus etc there are numerous ways to handle it. Shooty armies suffer the most from Invis so e.g. Tau which people seems to have crazy bias against anyway so here's a tool for you
Tau Revoke Hunter Contingent nerf. Revoke Ghostkeel nerf Revoke Piranha Firestream nerf Revoke change to Stormsurge tank shock. It is irrelevant due to Unstoppable, Gargantuan Creature rule. Revoke Markerlights not hitting units when shooting through a Void Shield nerf.
Torrent Hellstorm Weapons Allow, because why not?
ForgeWorld Just allow it all, there is no Experimental or 40K approved stamp anymore, it's all "Legal".
I agree with all of the above except the item about ranged D and Forgeworld.
I would add in a revoking of the Tank Shock ruling. What Reece? I'm not sore about it! See!?
Reecius wrote: Yeah, Eldar vs. Eldar, or reserve army vs. reserve army often comes down to who goes second regardless of format. The real issue is the IGOUGO format more so than anything, but that is obviously not easily fixed.
We are open to altering the mission structure (and plan on doing it, actually). Any ideas and feedback are appreciated. We've been looking at exactly the change described, actually, of pushing back the scoring a player turn to give both players time to counter the other player.
This and some other tweaks largely solved IGOUGO "who goes 2nd" for NOVA missions this most recent year, both statistically in terms of game outcome and in the survey feedback received from a vast majority of the players. Individual experience will always vary, ofc.
Reecius wrote: Yeah, Eldar vs. Eldar, or reserve army vs. reserve army often comes down to who goes second regardless of format. The real issue is the IGOUGO format more so than anything, but that is obviously not easily fixed.
We are open to altering the mission structure (and plan on doing it, actually). Any ideas and feedback are appreciated. We've been looking at exactly the change described, actually, of pushing back the scoring a player turn to give both players time to counter the other player.
This and some other tweaks largely solved IGOUGO "who goes 2nd" for NOVA missions this most recent year, both statistically in terms of game outcome and in the survey feedback received from a vast majority of the players. Individual experience will always vary, ofc.
I can echo this - the decision to go first or second was a difficult one in some games, where there were solid advantages to both choices.
MVBrandt wrote: This and some other tweaks largely solved IGOUGO "who goes 2nd" for NOVA missions this most recent year, both statistically in terms of game outcome and in the survey feedback received from a vast majority of the players. Individual experience will always vary, ofc.
The NOVA missions are the most fun missions I've ever played. They aren't perfect, but i really, really like them, and I think they are a good place to start for anyone looking to write new missions for competitive 40K.
ETA: When I 1st read the missions I wasn't all that on board with them, but after playing them enough to get the hang of how they work, they are outstanding.
Reecius wrote: Yeah, Eldar vs. Eldar, or reserve army vs. reserve army often comes down to who goes second regardless of format. The real issue is the IGOUGO format more so than anything, but that is obviously not easily fixed.
We are open to altering the mission structure (and plan on doing it, actually). Any ideas and feedback are appreciated. We've been looking at exactly the change described, actually, of pushing back the scoring a player turn to give both players time to counter the other player.
This and some other tweaks largely solved IGOUGO "who goes 2nd" for NOVA missions this most recent year, both statistically in terms of game outcome and in the survey feedback received from a vast majority of the players. Individual experience will always vary, ofc.
I can echo this - the decision to go first or second was a difficult one in some games, where there were solid advantages to both choices.
Ill third this, ITC missions Achilles heel is the fact that Maelstrom scoring wasn't well thought-out. Outside of the huge advantage to going 2nd, I don't think the ITC missions require much tweaking. Maybe some different Maelstroms and also some different tertiaries (seeing STW/FB/LB all the time gets old).
The scoring at the bottom of the turn part of the ITC missions was actually very thought out, lol, but we aren't married to it. The concept is the same as with NOVA missions. Generating objectives and scoring in the same player turns means it's just too random, there's no counter strategy. By forcing players to wait a player turn to score after generating their objectives, both players get a chance to counter the other. It's the same principal, just applied slightly differently. Which version any individual player prefers is up to them of course and like I said, I honestly don't care where the ideas come from, just that they function well and create a fun, fair mission format. We function in a meritocracy, here. The best ideas win, regardless of source.
As for the VSG,
For what its worth, the ITC inherited that ruling from the INAT/Adepticon FAQ. Not that we're trying to throw anyone under the bus or anything, I personally agree with the ruling, but can see arguments the other way. They are quite common but they do provide defense for some of the weaker armies vs. some of the more powerful armies, allowing them to survive alhpa strikes and such that would otherwise make them extremely difficult to play at higher levels. YMMV, of course.
Reecius wrote: The scoring at the bottom of the turn part of the ITC missions was actually very thought out, lol, but we aren't married to it. The concept is the same as with NOVA missions. Generating objectives and scoring in the same player turns means it's just too random, there's no counter strategy. By forcing players to wait a player turn to score after generating their objectives, both players get a chance to counter the other. It's the same principal, just applied slightly differently. Which version any individual player prefers is up to them of course and like I said, I honestly don't care where the ideas come from, just that they function well and create a fun, fair mission format. We function in a meritocracy, here. The best ideas win, regardless of source.
The difference between NOVA and ITC missions scoring progressive objectives, is that in NOVA both players have to wait until the end of their Opponent's turn. In ITC, only the player that goes 1st has to wait until the end of their Opponent's turn. It isn't applied evenly. The 2nd player has a significant advantage. Add to that, that most of the Eternal War missions are also scored at the bottom of turn (The exception being Kill Points), and you have a mission that is designed to favor the 2nd player. Score at the End of your player turn, or at the end of your opponent's player turn, but apply it consistently to both players.
Reecius wrote: The scoring at the bottom of the turn part of the ITC missions was actually very thought out, lol, but we aren't married to it. The concept is the same as with NOVA missions. Generating objectives and scoring in the same player turns means it's just too random, there's no counter strategy. By forcing players to wait a player turn to score after generating their objectives, both players get a chance to counter the other. It's the same principal, just applied slightly differently. Which version any individual player prefers is up to them of course and like I said, I honestly don't care where the ideas come from, just that they function well and create a fun, fair mission format. We function in a meritocracy, here. The best ideas win, regardless of source.
As for the VSG,
For what its worth, the ITC inherited that ruling from the INAT/Adepticon FAQ. Not that we're trying to throw anyone under the bus or anything, I personally agree with the ruling, but can see arguments the other way. They are quite common but they do provide defense for some of the weaker armies vs. some of the more powerful armies, allowing them to survive alhpa strikes and such that would otherwise make them extremely difficult to play at higher levels. YMMV, of course.
But only player 2 gets to rebuttal. Player 1 has no chance to effect the ability of player 2 to score maelstroms. That's why beginning of player turn would work well. It means both players actually get a rebuttal.
Player 1 does get to respond as maelstrom are rolled at the start of the game turn, so player 1 knows what player 2 has to do and can weave that into their game plan for their turn.
I do think the idea of scoring at the beginning of a player's next turn is interesting though. Definitely food for thought.
Proposed change to scoring maelstrom: each player scores their maelstrom point at the beginning of their following turn, before generating new maelstrom objectives. It would work like this:
Turn 1:
Player 1 generates his objectives and completes his turn.
Player 2 generates his objectives and completes his turn.
Turn 2:
Player 1 scores any of his objectives he achieved/still holds. He then generates his new objectives and completes his turn.
Player 2 scores any of his objectives he achieved/still holds. He then generates his new objectives and completes his turn.
In this way, each player has 1 player turn to attempt to score their objective, and the opposing player has 1 player turn to attempt to deny any objective while scoring their own.
As stated, they aren't functionally the same. Simply knowing what they are simultaneously doesn't equalize, whereas having to do it on a way that can't be rebutted does.
FTGTEvan wrote: Proposed change to scoring maelstrom: each player scores their maelstrom point at the beginning of their following turn, before generating new maelstrom objectives. It would work like this:
Turn 1:
Player 1 generates his objectives and completes his turn.
Player 2 generates his objectives and completes his turn.
Turn 2:
Player 1 scores any of his objectives he achieved/still holds. He then generates his new objectives and completes his turn.
Player 2 scores any of his objectives he achieved/still holds. He then generates his new objectives and completes his turn.
In this way, each player has 1 player turn to attempt to score their objective, and the opposing player has 1 player turn to attempt to deny any objective while scoring their own.
+1, this is exactly how I think it best functions.
FTGTEvan wrote: Proposed change to scoring maelstrom: each player scores their maelstrom point at the beginning of their following turn, before generating new maelstrom objectives. It would work like this:
Turn 1:
Player 1 generates his objectives and completes his turn.
Player 2 generates his objectives and completes his turn.
Turn 2:
Player 1 scores any of his objectives he achieved/still holds. He then generates his new objectives and completes his turn.
Player 2 scores any of his objectives he achieved/still holds. He then generates his new objectives and completes his turn.
In this way, each player has 1 player turn to attempt to score their objective, and the opposing player has 1 player turn to attempt to deny any objective while scoring their own.
I like it. I'd be quite happy with this change (although I'm not unhappy with the current situation now).
I seem to recall this same argument about second turn being too powerful leading up to last year's LVO, but when Frontline crunched the numbers it turned out first turn players actually still won more frequently. I don't think they collected data on which player went first this year, though.
First turn had the advantage of alpha strikes and getting your powers off first, while second turn had the advantage of being better at grabbing objectives. If you remove most of the second turn advantage, how do you counter the nore significant first turn advantage?
DarkLink wrote: I seem to recall this same argument about second turn being too powerful leading up to last year's LVO, but when Frontline crunched the numbers it turned out first turn players actually still won more frequently. I don't think they collected data on which player went first this year, though.
First turn had the advantage of alpha strikes and getting your powers off first, while second turn had the advantage of being better at grabbing objectives. If you remove most of the second turn advantage, how do you counter the nore significant first turn advantage?
Well, VSG being in a huge number of lists is part of how you protect from alphas. Lots of armies are more mobile and have great reserves/redeployment options. And theres always the tried and true method of deploying out of LOS/range. With good terrain and smart play, its pretty easy not to be alpha struck.
"In a huge number of lists" is a bit of an exaggeration, it was common but certainly not in every, or even most, lists this year. Most of those mobile armies were really mobile with just as many deployment optiins at the previous LVO, and that was before skyhammer, free drop pods, and similar formation benefits. The terrain at the LVOs have always been consistantly heavy on LOS blocking terrain, so that's nothing new. Either way, my point was that the problem you're trying to solve might not even exist (it didn't last year, at least), so why try to solve an imaginary problem for the sake of it, then try to figure out additional changes in order to balance out those unnecessary nerfs in the first place? Make sure you have a problem before jumping through a bunch of hoops in order to solve it.
To be clear, I'm not saying it is an imaginary problem, just that we need to verify that it is an issue first, to avoid doing more harm than good.
DarkLink wrote: I seem to recall this same argument about second turn being too powerful leading up to last year's LVO, but when Frontline crunched the numbers it turned out first turn players actually still won more frequently. I don't think they collected data on which player went first this year, though.
First turn had the advantage of alpha strikes and getting your powers off first, while second turn had the advantage of being better at grabbing objectives. If you remove most of the second turn advantage, how do you counter the nore significant first turn advantage?
The issue there is that they included the data from a ALL the games. This includes the round 1 mismatches where a competitive tau list rocks out a mediocre ork list, or necrons steamroll a land raider spearhead with gauss. In those kind of matchups, I wouldn't be surprised to see the advantaged player take first turn just to "seal the deal" and make it quick, but really, that kind of game was only going to end one way, regardless of who goes first or second. Let's face it, whether intentional or not, plenty of people show up who have no realistic chance of ranking high.
To make me a believer of that data, they would've needed to exclude any one-sided stomps and only measure games that are between "comparable" armies. It is my belief that if this measurement were to occur, we would've seen more 2nd turn victories than first. That's just conjecture without the measurement though.
DarkLink wrote: I seem to recall this same argument about second turn being too powerful leading up to last year's LVO, but when Frontline crunched the numbers it turned out first turn players actually still won more frequently. I don't think they collected data on which player went first this year, though.
First turn had the advantage of alpha strikes and getting your powers off first, while second turn had the advantage of being better at grabbing objectives. If you remove most of the second turn advantage, how do you counter the nore significant first turn advantage?
The missions changed since then. With the removal of 1st blood from many of the missions, and the increase in the points of the Maelstrom Missions, the 1st Turn bias dissipated somewhat. That resulted in them trying to put 1st blood back into missions to reduce the 2nd turn bias, when they probably should have switched Maelstrom Scoring over to the player turn instead of the Game turn.
If Maelstrom were still fairly irrelevant to the winning of the game like it was at last year's LVO, then they could get away with a 2nd turn bias for it.
ETA. When Prepping for Last year's LVO, I practiced to ignore Malestrom Completely. 1st Blood, Primary, and Linebreaker. That is how you won that version of the ITC missions. I believe i won the Maelstrom in both of my Losses at last year's LVO, but it was irrelevant to the outcome of the games.
DarkLink wrote: "In a huge number of lists" is a bit of an exaggeration, it was common but certainly not in every, or even most, lists this year. Most of those mobile armies were really mobile with just as many deployment optiins at the previous LVO, and that was before skyhammer, free drop pods, and similar formation benefits. The terrain at the LVOs have always been consistantly heavy on LOS blocking terrain, so that's nothing new. Either way, my point was that the problem you're trying to solve might not even exist (it didn't last year, at least), so why try to solve an imaginary problem for the sake of it, then try to figure out additional changes in order to balance out those unnecessary nerfs in the first place? Make sure you have a problem before jumping through a bunch of hoops in order to solve it.
To be clear, I'm not saying it is an imaginary problem, just that we need to verify that it is an issue first, to avoid doing more harm than good.
I've played at least 20 games in ITC format and from my, admittedly anecdotal evidence, it is far more beneficial to go 2nd. And ive noticed many of my opponents and members of my FLGS feel the same way. There are almost no scenarios in which id rather go first in ITC.
DarkLink wrote: I seem to recall this same argument about second turn being too powerful leading up to last year's LVO, but when Frontline crunched the numbers it turned out first turn players actually still won more frequently. I don't think they collected data on which player went first this year, though.
First turn had the advantage of alpha strikes and getting your powers off first, while second turn had the advantage of being better at grabbing objectives. If you remove most of the second turn advantage, how do you counter the nore significant first turn advantage?
The issue there is that they included the data from a ALL the games. This includes the round 1 mismatches where a competitive tau list rocks out a mediocre ork list, or necrons steamroll a land raider spearhead with gauss. In those kind of matchups, I wouldn't be surprised to see the advantaged player take first turn just to "seal the deal" and make it quick, but really, that kind of game was only going to end one way, regardless of who goes first or second. Let's face it, whether intentional or not, plenty of people show up who have no realistic chance of ranking high.
To make me a believer of that data, they would've needed to exclude any one-sided stomps and only measure games that are between "comparable" armies. It is my belief that if this measurement were to occur, we would've seen more 2nd turn victories than first. That's just conjecture without the measurement though.
The types of armies that would do well curbstomping soft armies would probably be best doing the same against better armies as well. Tau would actually probably want orks to go first, so the orks would move up into 36" broadside range to maximize their firepower. Without any data to bas it on, army matchups are too much of a variable for this to be more than speculation, though.
tag8833 wrote:
The missions changed since then. With the removal of 1st blood from many of the missions, and the increase in the points of the Maelstrom Missions, the 1st Turn bias dissipated somewhat.
If Maelstrom were still fairly irrelevant to the winning of the game like it was at last year's LVO, then they could get away with a 2nd turn bias for it.
True, and with the increased value of maelstorm, that's a 2 point swing towrds second turn. We still could use some numbers to see how big that is, or if the first turns won their games mostly by destroying their opponents and the power of their alpha strikes were the big advantage. Too bad first turns weren't tracked this year.
LValx wrote:
I've played at least 20 games in ITC format and from my, admittedly anecdotal evidence, it is far more beneficial to go 2nd. And ive noticed many of my opponents and members of my FLGS feel the same way. There are almost no scenarios in which id rather go first in ITC.
Whereas I've found quite a few games where I want to go first. It depends heavily on your style of play and what types of armies you run, and what army you're up against.
We've been debating generating missions at the beginning of each player turn and scoring at the beginning of their next player turn all day here in the studio and there are pros and cons.
As we do it now, both players do get knowledge of what the other player does and gets a chance for rebuttal. The player going first has to do it preemptively which can be perceived as disadvantage (and in some cases, can be an actual disadvantage).
If you generate at the beginning of the player turn, then score before generating on the next turn, both players do get a rebuttal but you get a wonky situation where the player going first acts on his first turn without knowledge of player two is trying to do, but gets the final defensive action of the game without knowledge of if the game will end or not, so still feels slightly weighted towards turn 2.
We're exploring a lot of options and thanks for the constructive feedback.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As for stats on the ITC format, the last time we tracked the data (which is a bit old, now, to be fair, but the same format) going first had the slight advantage in win percentage, 51% to 49%. It was almost perfectly balanced.
Ah, I'd thought it was a slightly larger margin than that.
If that's the case, I'd guess that it's now a slight 2nd turn advantage due to the removal of first blood and the increased importance of maelstorm. A 2 point swing is not insignificant.
Reecius wrote: We've been debating generating missions at the beginning of each player turn and scoring at the beginning of their next player turn all day here in the studio and there are pros and cons.
As we do it now, both players do get knowledge of what the other player does and gets a chance for rebuttal. The player going first has to do it preemptively which can be perceived as disadvantage (and in some cases, can be an actual disadvantage).
If you generate at the beginning of the player turn, then score before generating on the next turn, both players do get a rebuttal but you get a wonky situation where the player going first acts on his first turn without knowledge of player two is trying to do, but gets the final defensive action of the game without knowledge of if the game will end or not, so still feels slightly weighted towards turn 2.
We're exploring a lot of options and thanks for the constructive feedback.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As for stats on the ITC format, the last time we tracked the data (which is a bit old, now, to be fair, but the same format) going first had the slight advantage in win percentage, 51% to 49%. It was almost perfectly balanced.
It might be a slight advantage to going second, but nothing like it is now. Currently player two gets to see actually which maelstrom objectives player 1 commits to and respond accordingly. Player two also gets to see how many objectives player one has accomplished and which ones he chooses not to. Its a huge asymmetric information advantage. Player two can see how many player one can possible score, how many he can possibly score, see the total score of the mission in terms of best case/worst case (i.e. I can score one and maintain a lead, I need to score two and deny one, etc.) and commit combat power accordingly. Player one has to guess at what player two will do and allocate to the unknown. Switching to scoring at the start of the next player turn greatly offsets this advantage as player one has a roughly equal information advantage.
LValx wrote: You could also have both players simultaneously generate maelstrom at beginning of Game turn then still score them at beginning of following player turn.
In which case the player going second doesn't even get a chance to try to score? I think you need to explain it better, what it sounds like you're saying is either exactly what ITC does now, or it's a setup that doesn't make sense.
Dozer Blades wrote: How about not have maelstrom in every mission ? It heavily favors certain builds .
This is a good point
Kill points needs to be in more missions, as it is, we have 6 games, each with two sets of objectives to win, so 12 missions over the course of 6 games, of which, 11 are objective based.
LValx wrote: You could also have both players simultaneously generate maelstrom at beginning of Game turn then still score them at beginning of following player turn.
In which case the player going second doesn't even get a chance to try to score? I think you need to explain it better, what it sounds like you're saying is either exactly what ITC does now, or it's a setup that doesn't make sense.
yep, I worded that wrong, ignore haha. I really was just going to end up reiterating Evans method. I know I participated in a local RTT in NOVA that modifed when the maelstroms were scored, i'm going to try to find out what they did to modify the scoring.
Dozer Blades wrote: How about not have maelstrom in every mission ? It heavily favors certain builds .
This is a good point
Kill points needs to be in more missions, as it is, we have 6 games, each with two sets of objectives to win, so 12 missions over the course of 6 games, of which, 11 are objective based.
Add more KP and you will see more Deathstars. And KP is a pretty poor mission, it requires far less tactical acumen than scoring objectives.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dozer Blades wrote: How about not have maelstrom in every mission ? It heavily favors certain builds .
I think having primary/secondary/Tertiary missions is good, but I do agree that maelstrom might not be the best, or might be better in say, every other mission.
But I am curious as to what build you think maelstrom favors? Mobile armies? Because I would argue that objective based games in general favor mobile armies, not just maelstrom.
So be fair though every maelstom mission paired with an objective mission involves KPs in some fashion (ie: kill a unit), so KP isnt that under-seen. Furthermore if it's not KP then its about getting across the board quickly, which only eldar are bananaballs at. Most other MSU spam is still relatively slow.
Largo39 wrote: So be fair though every maelstom mission paired with an objective mission involves KPs in some fashion (ie: kill a unit), so KP isnt that under-seen. Furthermore if it's not KP then its about getting across the board quickly, which only eldar are bananaballs at. Most other MSU spam is still relatively slow.
THIS! people keep forgetting that in just about every ITC scenario, theres a KP-esque mission. Some of the missions 50% of maelstroms are simply destroy a unit.
Dozer Blades wrote: How about not have maelstrom in every mission ? It heavily favors certain builds .
This is a good point
Kill points needs to be in more missions, as it is, we have 6 games, each with two sets of objectives to win, so 12 missions over the course of 6 games, of which, 11 are objective based.
First- I'm not a fan of kill points at all. It heavily favors just having the stronger army, instead of allowing the weaker army to try to play to the mission to win despite the power disparity. It also favors elite units and deathstars heavily. If KP were more common in events, I'd probably just bring imperial Knights to try and be competitive.
Second- Every maelstrom chart except for the one during purge the alien has 1/3 of the options as "kill a unit," except for scouring, which has half of them. So kill points are actually part of every combined mission in some form or fashion. There's also 2 big game hunters iirc, first strike, 2 first bloods, and 6 slay the warlord tertiaries. All of those being relevant to just killing certain targets. I'd say killing stuff is plenty prevalent.
What I have found (been soliciting a ton of feedback from tourament players) is that the most savvy players pretty much universally want to see maelstrom scoring go to player turn, in general we see the impact is pretty minimal on the ITC as a whole. However, the best players are all saying the same thing.
We've been debating alternate formats all day and just play tested some 1650 (I am a huge fan of this points level now, btw, much faster) with generating points at the beginning of your player turn and then scoring at the beginning of your next player turn.
It worked quite well, actually and gives the player going first the advantage in the last turn. I think it's a simple, solid fix. Takes a bit of getting used to though, if you've been playing ITC missions for a while.
Also, we're messing with maelstrom to make it slightly less random to minimize bad luck streaks. Our tests have been very promising.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh and again, thank you for all the constructive feedback. Been very helpful.
TBH, I think mealstrom needs to be done away with. or atleast made so mobile armies tht are MSU are not given an unfaire advantage.MSUIMO is what is slowing the game down, not points
Half the maelstroms involve destroying units, exceedingly easy vs msu. And you keep mentioning msu, yet out of top 8 I'd argue only 3 armies were truly MSU, Sisk and Chesters lists were the only ones who took 15+ individual units (barring ICs). 2 players used deaths tars (Aaron and Alex) and one players entire army was essentially 3 mcs + a mini death star.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Most armies can easily pack around 20 units into 1850, yet you didn't see many armies outside of BC doing that. And from what I heard the KP mission took out a good chunk of the Gladius players.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Death Star 40k will play faster, it'll also kill enjoyment like it did in 6th.
Reecius wrote: Also, we're messing with maelstrom to make it slightly less random to minimize bad luck streaks. Our tests have been very promising.
I made lots of proposals on better ways to approach your Maestrom Objectives. Let me reiterate a few now that you are in the process of actually Looking at them.
Option 1) Fix the current system with minimal Changes.
Objective Placement. All Maelstrom Objectives should either be in No-Mans Land or have a copy in each Deployment zone.
Add On #1: The Linebreaker, and Hold the Line objectives should either be rerollable on turn 1, or have an alternative objective. For Instance:
Have a scoring unit at least partially within the enemy deployment zone or Run/Flat Out/Turbo Boost 3 or more units.
Have at least 3 of your scoring units and no enemy scoring units at least partially within your own deployment zone or Have 3 units in the opponent's Deployment zone.
Add On #2: Be mindful of "Deployment zone" in vanguard deployment.
Option 2) Do away with rolling for Maelstrom
The idea here, is that each turn you pick 2 Objectives from the Maelstrom list, but you cannot pick the same objective on 2 consecutive turns.
Add On #3: Mixing up the Maelstrom list a bit would be good. For Instance "Control 2 or more table Quarters" is a good Maelstrom Objective. "Complete a successful Charge" is a good Maelstrom Objective. They don't have to be so Objective based, and it would diversify the meta a bit.
Option 3) Add a multi-tier Maelstrom, this isn't so much a fix as a way to add some dynamism.
The easiest way to explain this is with an example:
1. For 1 Point Hold Either Objective 1, Get a Bonus point if you hold 2 or more objectives.
2. For 1 Point Hold Either Objective 2, Get a Bonus point if you hold an objective that was held by your opponent at the start of your turn.
3. For 1 Point Destroy an enemy unit, Get a bonus point if you Kill a unit in Assault
4. For 1 Point Destroy an enemy unit. Get a bonus point if you Kill 3 or more enemy Units.
5. For 1 Point Have a scoring unit at least partially within the enemy deployment zone, Get a Bonus Point if you have 3 or more Scoring units partially within the enemy Deployment zone.
6. For 1 Point Have a unit closer to your Board edge than your opponent. Get a Bonus point if you Have at least 3 of your scoring units and no enemy scoring units at least partially within your own deployment zone,
I think the Tertiary points could use an update as well.
First Blood can work sometimes, but it doesn't work at all in the Kill Points mission. I would probably do away with the Kill Points mission, and Incooperate Kill points into every mission like Nova, or ETC, but if you are sticking with Kill Points, you can replace First Blood with another unique objective that isn't scored so Early. Last Laugh is good. Strike the Rank and File is a great Tertiary, because it encourages a slightly more balanced army Comp. Big Game Hunter is Great. Marked for Death (Where you nominate a unit in your opponents army to kill) is fun. Lots of Kill point related options where the game wouldn't be over if you failed to get it based on list design. First Strike works fine, but it wouldn't be great in the Kill Points Mission.
Slay The Warlord is fine once in a while, but doesn't treat all armies fairly. So instead of having it in all 6 missions. Maybe it could be in 2 of the 6.
Linebreaker is good. Being in 5 of the 6 missions might be excessive, because some armies (Eldar) are always going to get it, while other armies have a much harder time with it.
Big Game Hunter is great the way it is.
Table Quarters is good. I might swap it in for one of the Linebreakers or Slay the Warlords.
King of the Hill is fine. Need to resolve what happens if the players Tie, including a tie of 0.
One last thing. There are gigantic swings in ITC missions. "If the game ends now, I win 11-1. If it goes on to turn 6, you Win 9 - 3." That sort of scenario isn't appropriately representing a close game. I know that you run a W/L system, but it feels like updating battle points in some way to better represent the outcome of the game would be good.
Yeah I was interested to see that MSU didnt actually have that great an impact at LVO. Id' be curious as to the official results but it seems to have been a lot of bark but no resulting bite.
Demons also seemed curiously not as dense up there either. It seemed more about eldar and cronss with DA waiting just in the wings.
My battle company has 31 kp. 15 kp is not that much for an army at 1850, Id guess that is a normal or average amount of units. Even Death Star armies approach that number if you count ics. What do you expect to see at 1850?
Automatically Appended Next Post: And btw I would hardly call an even split in top 8 and a 5 pt advantage in top 36 'ruling', that's a bit hyperbolic to say the least. Also, you say still rules as though MSU has been dominating GTs, even though Deathstars and Daemons win GTs with regularity. I'd argue that for pretty much all of 6th and up until recently in 7th, that Deathstars and more elite armies were doing better competitively.
This is a weird discussion. MSU has major advantages by the mechanics, and also represents patently good tactical doctrine. Deathstars only do well when given ridiculous mechanics like 1/12 failsave odds after buffs and invisibility and the like. If only the top half was MSU, game rules and missions are helping balance what otherwise would be the case. Always been the case.
Julnlecs wrote: My Battle Company has 33 KPs and only lost once at LVO. Round 6. You said it like MSU was non existent in the top tables which wasn't true.
There was 3 Daemons, 3 Death Star armies and 6 Battle Companies in the Top 40.
At no point did I say it was non-existent, quote me please. All I am doing is refuting the idea of MSU having been overly powerful within ITC structure. I ran a TWC list for about a year, low model count, relatively low unit count (14 units including ICs) that did every bit as well in ITC, possibly better due to its pure offensive output. My only point is that while, yes, MSU is good (It always will be because its a sound tactic) it isn't overpowering and isn't something that the missions should discourage for the good of the game. MSU lists are more engaging than deathstars or super heavys or GMCs, IMO at least.
Automatically Appended Next Post: well gak, MVB beat me to it.
LValx wrote: Half the maelstroms involve destroying units, exceedingly easy vs msu. And you keep mentioning msu, yet out of top 8 I'd argue only 3 armies were truly MSU, Sisk and Chesters lists were the only ones who took 15+ individual units (barring ICs). 2 players used deaths tars (Aaron and Alex) and one players entire army was essentially 3 mcs + a mini death star.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Most armies can easily pack around 20 units into 1850, yet you didn't see many armies outside of BC doing that. And from what I heard the KP mission took out a good chunk of the Gladius players.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Death Star 40k will play faster, it'll also kill enjoyment like it did in 6th.
Automatically Appended Next Post: You said "you didn't see many armies but BatCo doing that" but I did see a lot of Top armies at LVO doing it. MSU is still king in ITC.
I asked in another thread and was pointed to this thread. Is Alan (Daemon player) a member here? If so, do you know his handle so I could PM some questions about how he played Daemons?
Not being in an area where there are a lot of competitive players, I was hoping to gain some insight on how to play my daemon army more effectively. If anyone knows the answer to these questions, I would appreciate it greatly!
Okay fine, I retract a bit my saying MSU was all bark and refine it to say "extreme" MSU (BCs) were more bark than bit.
I'm not sure I qualify 15 units to be "MSU", if only because that would then technically include deathstars givne the amount of characters they have, but certainly 33 is "extreme MSU", so lets just focus on extreme then.
Either way 6 out of 40 is.. um, a pretty even showing? Given the amount of BC players im sure there were that doesnt strike me as the win record you'd expect. I'm not saying its bad at all, but still not particularly dominant either.
Furthermore you limit the result to the top 16 and it drops to.. 1
4 eldar - 12,18, 17,15
1 BC - infinite
2 demons - 10, 9 (at first)
2 cult mechanicus - 12, 16,
3 crons - 12, 16, 15
1 tau - 12 units
2 ravenwing - deathstars
1 - unknown
SO.. yeah? heck if you amend the "MSU" definition to be just 20 units or more the MSU count drops to.. 1.
LValx wrote: Half the maelstroms involve destroying units, exceedingly easy vs msu. And you keep mentioning msu, yet out of top 8 I'd argue only 3 armies were truly MSU, Sisk and Chesters lists were the only ones who took 15+ individual units (barring ICs). 2 players used deaths tars (Aaron and Alex) and one players entire army was essentially 3 mcs + a mini death star.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Most armies can easily pack around 20 units into 1850, yet you didn't see many armies outside of BC doing that. And from what I heard the KP mission took out a good chunk of the Gladius players.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Death Star 40k will play faster, it'll also kill enjoyment like it did in 6th.
Automatically Appended Next Post: You said "you didn't see many armies but BatCo doing that" but I did see a lot of Top armies at LVO doing it. MSU is still king in ITC.
I also said 20 units. Your idea and my idea of MSU is different. Under your definition of MSU a Wolfstar qualifies because it packs around 15 units (including ICs). Its rare to see any army have less than 10 units, so IMO having ~15 units is pretty average, not really MSU. Most armies are taking at least one big expensive unit that sucks up 15-30% of an armys overall pts (WKs, IKs, Stormsurges). You say MSU is king, which to me implies some level of dominance, I don't see it.
That being said, I definitely think MSU is the best tactic for list building, but I don't think it makes winning any easier, if anything I'd argue MSU is more difficult to play than a deathstar list or an elite list built around superheavies/GMCs which is why despite BC being, IMO, the best overall TACMSU list, it didn't perform overwhelmingly well. As someone who recently switched from TWC to Gladius, I can say that the Gladius is far, far more difficult to win, even if it happens to follow a more sound tactic and is a better take all comers army.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I'm also not going to keep arguing about what qualifies as MSU and what doesn't. Its completely subjective and there is no way for one of us to be right or wrong. Just different opinions on a matter.
You don't think it's performing better lately than it has at times historically, though?
It depends on what anyone here means exactly by the term / etc, of course... which makes it a bit hard to discuss. But seeing mostly 100-point units isn't something I thought has "always" been king... but again, that might not be what you mean!
I think Battle Company and a general cheapening of units and increase in free units causes MSU to do better, yes, because you can do more units than you used to be able to do. I don't think that's a byproduct of missions or anything.
But even in the past, Deathstar armies like Draigo star and the like did NOT do well. They did well SOMETIMES when they lucked out with their objective-mission match-ups and abused KP matchups or bad mission formats where tourneys fielded more than the book balanced 1/3 of missions as KP, while also being piloted by very solid players.
Even when those sorts of armies were getting a lot of press for the big annoying wound allocation mess units, MSU armies were generally performing much better.
It's a bit of a long-running personal "funny" for me, because often the only way to "make MSU less good" is to use missions that are logically silly, like Kill Points. In most* game systems with tons of models ranging from "free" to 500+ points each, people would scoff at the notion of awarding equal value to all things killed.
You don't think it's performing better lately than it has at times historically, though?
It depends on what anyone here means exactly by the term / etc, of course... which makes it a bit hard to discuss. But seeing mostly 100-point units isn't something I thought has "always" been king... but again, that might not be what you mean!
MSU performed WAY better in 5th, it was essentially all MSU back then. 6th barely saw MSU because it was Deathstars everywhere. MSU has just recently been making a big comeback IMO. And as MVBrandt pointed out, the only ways to hurt MSU, mission-wise, will hurt the game by encouraging more deathstar armies.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: The fact somebody said we should un-nerf Invisibility proves we are drifting further from God's light.
I think they should un-nerf it. Its a pointless nerf, much like the 2+ rerollable nerf. Invisible units, even with the nerf to invis, are still by all practical means, invincible. You don't beat deathstar units by engaging them and playing their game, you beat them by not engaging them at all. Having the mindset of "I've got to kill units" is what causes people to lose against deathstars, not invisibility being OP (not saying that invis is balanced). The nerf to invis and 2+ reroll just tricks people into thinking they can hurt those units, when in reality they still cant do enough damage for it to matter.
Math tends to disagree with your invis and 2+ rerollable nerf is useless. Because the 2+ rerollable nerf is essentially the same odds as a 3+ rerollable. You are correct to still play the way you state if you can; however the increased odds in your favor also help you defend vs those Death Stars when you need too.
gungo wrote: Math tends to disagree with your invis and 2+ rerollable nerf is useless. Because the 2+ rerollable nerf is essentially the same odds as a 3+ rerollable. You are correct to still play the way you state if you can; however the increased odds in your favor also help you defend vs those Death Stars when you need too.
1/12 failed is a fair bit better than 1/9. And even a unit with 3+ rerollable isn't really worth engaging. It will always be too inefficient. If your plan is to beat a deathstar by engaging it, you will likely lose. The ITC missions themselves are a bigger nerf to deathstars than the nerf to invis or rerolls, IMO at least.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, I don't really care either way on Invis or the Rerolls, as I stated, the nerfs don't effect my playstyle or strategy. I just happen to think the less changes made to the rules the better.
gungo wrote: Math tends to disagree with your invis and 2+ rerollable nerf is useless. Because the 2+ rerollable nerf is essentially the same odds as a 3+ rerollable. You are correct to still play the way you state if you can; however the increased odds in your favor also help you defend vs those Death Stars when you need too.
1/12 failed is a fair bit better than 1/9. And even a unit with 3+ rerollable isn't really worth engaging. It will always be too inefficient. If your plan is to beat a deathstar by engaging it, you will likely lose. The ITC missions themselves are a bigger nerf to deathstars than the nerf to invis or rerolls, IMO at least.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, I don't really care either way on Invis or the Rerolls, as I stated, the nerfs don't effect my playstyle or strategy. I just happen to think the less changes made to the rules the better.
While in general I would agree (the functional difference of those changes is very small and shouldnt change your decision making) their are definite exceptions, namely allowing templates and blasts to hit them. At first that wasn't an issue, now it is a big deal because of d-scythes and warphunters and such. The invis nerf is a big change in that respect.
The reroll nerf means that the unit goes from effectively invincible to "it will take most of the game to kill it or badly hurt it, but you can do it". And I've played enough with both nerfed and unnerfed invis that I laugh at the idea of unnerfing it.
You have msu in one corner and deathstars in the other. The maelstrom should reward lists that are able to achieve the most diverse amount of missions.
It's tricky figuring how to do that since some books are more oriented around less phases. Other than line breaker progressive objectives should only be in your DZ or No mans land, since many armies simply lack the mobility.
Having more maelstroms missions on turn 1 might make people null deploy/reserve less making it somewhat stronger going first.
I was thinking a bit last night and honestly I believe that, while Maelstrom makes games more engaging than the Parking Lot games of old, punishing armies that like to sit and shoot feels bad as well.
One of the things I like about Adepticon this year is that the missions have a mix of progressive objectives and end of game objectives. I think more events should have a mix, and that a player should have an equal shot at winning no matter which one they decide to focus on.
Yes, Maelstrom is nice because it forces people to move around and make decisions. But it really puts a lot of weight into certain types of lists and takes the power out of others. And the same goes for Eternal War Crusade/Scouring/Big Guns type games, vice-versa.
I think missions should encourage different types of lists to play differently, rather than just saying "hey make the most mobile type of MSU list if you want to win because that has the edge in most if not all of the missions". 45 Warp Spiders are extremely good in Maelstrom, but if a Tau player was allowed to Gun Line up and play towards end of game objectives? That changes the dynamic entirely.
gungo wrote: Math tends to disagree with your invis and 2+ rerollable nerf is useless. Because the 2+ rerollable nerf is essentially the same odds as a 3+ rerollable. You are correct to still play the way you state if you can; however the increased odds in your favor also help you defend vs those Death Stars when you need too.
1/12 failed is a fair bit better than 1/9. And even a unit with 3+ rerollable isn't really worth engaging. It will always be too inefficient. If your plan is to beat a deathstar by engaging it, you will likely lose. The ITC missions themselves are a bigger nerf to deathstars than the nerf to invis or rerolls, IMO at least.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, I don't really care either way on Invis or the Rerolls, as I stated, the nerfs don't effect my playstyle or strategy. I just happen to think the less changes made to the rules the better.
While in general I would agree (the functional difference of those changes is very small and shouldnt change your decision making) their are definite exceptions, namely allowing templates and blasts to hit them. At first that wasn't an issue, now it is a big deal because of d-scythes and warphunters and such. The invis nerf is a big change in that respect.
Truth. I forgot about Warp Hunters. I'll say this though, I faced d-scythes numerous times with my wolfstar and they rarely did much damage (spread out) and due to darkshrouds usually got eaten up badly afterwards. Even if I were packing D, i'd be unlikely to attempt to kill the units that abuse psy powers and what not. But I guess I did overlook the D templates and the potential they have for hurting those units.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
DarkLink wrote: The reroll nerf means that the unit goes from effectively invincible to "it will take most of the game to kill it or badly hurt it, but you can do it". And I've played enough with both nerfed and unnerfed invis that I laugh at the idea of unnerfing it.
Meh, a 2+/4+ unit is essentially invincible, I recently played against Ravenwing and the darkshrouds/blackknights were untouchable. Enough so that it made far more sense for me to forgo shooting to get better positioning for objectives/maelstroms.
I've noticed that with nerfed invis more players are tricked into thinking they can hurt the unit and thus end up putting themselves in bad positions giving up multicharges and whatnot due to an overconfidence in their ability to deal damage.
You still maneuver into good positions, but the nerf makes them significantly less survivable. In addition to outnaneuvering the units, you also have the potential to whittle the unit down over the course of the game.
Black Knights are a poor example of this since they're so cheap for their survivability, but all those deathstars that used to rely on rerollable invulns are significantly easier to handle now.
DarkLink wrote: You still maneuver into good positions, but the nerf makes them significantly less survivable. In addition to outnaneuvering the units, you also have the potential to whittle the unit down over the course of the game.
Black Knights are a poor example of this since they're so cheap for their survivability, but all those deathstars that used to rely on rerollable invulns are significantly easier to handle now.
I guess I havent had the same experience. I find that those deathstars are essentially just as survivable. I guess it depends on what army you play, as Tau and Eldar are the only ones I see capable of whittling down those units (and vs TWC, whittling down does pretty much nothing).
Automatically Appended Next Post: We can keep beating this dead horse, but both of our experiences are just that, personal experiences. NOVA Open, so far, hasn't nerfed invis or rerolls, ill be interested to see how things shake out.
Don't get me wrong, a 2/4+ is complete gak too, that shouldn't be in the game. At least not on cover and invuln saves, since they're so hard to ignore. But it does make a difference.
Why wait for 2016 nova open
The 2015 open used the same rules and deathstars placed significantly higher won rates. The entire tournament was also won by an undefeated wolf star. Thd same exact list Aaron played at lvo and he were he was ranked 8.
Anecdotal evidence suggests that the 2+ nerf does help.
While true, the distribution of top placings and midfield were similar. Missions help. But obviously invisible and reroll nerfs do actually nerf things.
Anecdotally, however, one of my bigger pet peeves is using event winners to evaluate the effectiveness of balance changes. It's not really relevant.
I like the idea of scoring Maelstrom objectives at the beginning of your next turn. However, the problem that I see with this is that sometimes, the 2nd player (player going 2nd) might not even get his turn due to intentional/unintentional slow-playing or time mismanagement. Now I know that it's up to the players to manage their times, but oftentimes, it is not in one player's best interest to adhere so strictly to that.
My proposal for such a case:
If both players cannot finish a game turn before the game ends, then the Maelstrom objectives won't count for both players for that turn.
Keep in mind that if, for example, there is only 10 minutes left in the game, then both players still need to split their time evenly. However, it is on Player #1 to make sure that Player #2 has time to take his 5-minutes to do his thing for both player's Maelstrom points to count that turn. Basically, this rule is to ensure that Player #2 doesn't get slow-played into not having a chance to get his Maelstrom objectives because he didn't have a turn to do anything at all.
It's like playing craps. Roll a dice, see if you had your chips down on the outcome, opponent can't do anything. Masturbation, the strategy tabletop war game.
A 2++ save is basically four times as good as a 4++ save and its not like there is some reason why people will generally roll 4+ on the re roll.
I never said it was as good, I said for all intents and purposes the unit is still essentially invincible, which they are. The amount of firepower required to take down one model becomes absurd and you are unlikely to do enough damage to neuter those squads before they make it to your lines. The bigger thing keeping TWC/Seer Councils from dominating ITC are the missions and thank goodness for that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dozer Blades wrote: You should score the same turn you draw the objectives. What is so hard about that ?
Thats boring as hell and requires little strategy. There should be a chance for the other player to deny you the ability to score them. It is far more engaging that way.
Largo39 wrote: Alternately for the last turn of the game you score on the end of turn instead of the PT of the next.
Problem is, you don't know which is the last turn of the game for sure. For some, it could be Turn 5. For others, it could be Turn 3. You kinda get screwed over if you plan for the last turn to be on Turn 4, but due to your opponent playing slow, it actually ends on 3.
your method:
t3 - t2 maelstrom scored, t3 rolled but impossible to score
vs mine:
t3 - t2 maelstrom scroed, t3 maelstrom rolled and scored as if were a current ITC game.
While it's a bit awkward to score 2 malestroms sets in a single turn, in some ways the advantage that p2 has in the normal situation is nullified because the p1 player gets to react to P2's maelstroms for turn 2 and turn 3 at once. So they could, for example, recognize that p2 is going to double up on objective A and put all their forces on it and so on. So that balances P2's advantage at being last to react to the turn 3 maelstroms.
now you're right knowing when to trigger this edge case is tricky but given the 30 minute split turn warning we already get i think it's reasonable to determine whats the "final" turn.
There is an easy fix if you are worried about slow play costing one player his/her turn (which IMO should never happen but...)simply score as the NOVA currently scores, but points are not added to the results until the end of each game turn.
For example
t1- top player 1 rolls objective, bottom p2 rolls objective
t2- player 1 scores, roll next, bottom p2 scores, rolls next at end of turn those scores are recorded in the results.
So if a full game turn is not complete scores on that final turn don't count.
Or, alternatively, time is called, scores for player 2's maelstrom are scored, as player 1s turn is over. So if player 1 is going slow and dice down is called before they run to contest an objective, well, player 2 still gets it.
Yeah, it's a little funny that the concern here is how to make sure missions work for games that end on Turn 3 or something similarly ridiculous, or where TOs actually allow a Game Turn to start but refuse to let it end, both of which are things that should not impact mission design.
IF your approach as a TO is to allow a Game to end midway through whatever the final Game Turn is, there are some questions to be brought up regarding proper TO behavior.
If your approach to missions is to desperately try to insulate them against an unfair result from a halfway finished final turn on Game Turn 3 ... well, way off in the middle of nowhere for proper mission design considerations.
Breng's solution is a good one if for some reason your event allows players to game the situation by assuring they only get to do the top half of a final turn (I mean, seriously? When is this allowed?). You just disallow the actual accrual of the Maelstrom points if the Game Turn doesn't finish.
*Edit - Written not knowing that LVO I guess called/calls hard dice without letting Game Turns finish?
Hoping to get some more data from FLG for a deeper dive, but it's a decent snapshot at what's going on in the competitive scene at the moment.
Great article!
Thank you for writing it, it basically mirrors my anecdotal experience as well, and every DE player I saw/played had elder allies so I tend to agree with you on that and many other points you extrapolated from the data.
I only wish I could exalt this a million more times,
Hoping to get some more data from FLG for a deeper dive, but it's a decent snapshot at what's going on in the competitive scene at the moment.
this is a very good post. I hope you can get more data points soon.
Spoiler:
Does this correct for the false filings?
For example, the top 50 Sisters list wasn't actually Sisters, but rather Salamanders. It was an error but I keep seeing statistic analysis posts not correcting for it, which leads to skewed statistics.
Edit: And I don't mean it was simply not enough Sisters in the list, I mean it literally had no Sisters in it.
That is a sweet article, thanks for making and sharing it! Would love to see a follow-up if you do get more data from Frontline
Thanks
easysauce wrote:
Great article!
Thank you for writing it, it basically mirrors my anecdotal experience as well, and every DE player I saw/played had elder allies so I tend to agree with you on that and many other points you extrapolated from the data.
I only wish I could exalt this a million more times,
Aww That's very kind, thank you.
axisofentropy wrote:this is a very good post. I hope you can get more data points soon.
Spoiler:
Thank you
Tinkrr wrote:
Does this correct for the false filings?
For example, the top 50 Sisters list wasn't actually Sisters, but rather Salamanders. It was an error but I keep seeing statistic analysis posts not correcting for it, which leads to skewed statistics.
Edit: And I don't mean it was simply not enough Sisters in the list, I mean it literally had no Sisters in it.
To be blunt, no, it doesn't. It's entirely based on the publicly available data - if something drifts by me I'll correct it, but that's it.
My biggest curiosity is if, ITC did not rule the new Tau RAW as conservatively as they did, if Tau would have made it higher in the rankings.
From some of the lists I heard people talking about, it didn't seem like their were very many really thought out Tau lists.. mainly OSC spam; I say this because I realize this could also change things in and of itself.
Yes I am a biased Tau player that loves to see his favorite army do well at events. =D (but who doesn't?)
Grizzyzz wrote: My biggest curiosity is if, ITC did not rule the new Tau RAW as conservatively as they did, if Tau would have made it higher in the rankings.
From some of the lists I heard people talking about, it didn't seem like their were very many really thought out Tau lists.. mainly OSC spam; I say this because I realize this could also change things in and of itself.
Yes I am a biased Tau player that loves to see his favorite army do well at events. =D (but who doesn't?)
Hoping to get some more data from FLG for a deeper dive, but it's a decent snapshot at what's going on in the competitive scene at the moment.
Also props! Good write up. Well chosen charts.. having a math background, I hate when people use biased and misleading statistics. =)
I used the HC with Riptide wing. And while HC is strong its not good at what it's intended(deathstar killer) with the ultra conservative ruling. A middle option like allowing the buffs to only be used on the target unit no matter what target lock or other rules allow you to target other units would have allowed for different builds. That view only makes Riptide wing even more prevalent. I hope it can be re-voted with the conservative and middle option instead of the two extremes we had previously.
Automatically Appended Next Post: NOVA is using this version. My hope is ITC adopts it: Coordinated Firepower and Interaction with Unit-Wide Buffs - The Signature Systems and similar unit wide effects transfer via the coordinated fire rule. Unit Wide effects apply to all contributing units, however only models, or weapons in the case of Gargantuan Creatures, firing at the target of the coordinated firepower attack gain the effect of applicable buffs through coordinated firepower. As such, contributing units that make use of Target Locks or GC Split Fire rules do not gain the buffs on those shots that don’t go at the primary target.
A few of those rulings were quite significant, particularly the drone factory. I believe JY2 did some battle reports vs that list and the drone spam tabled both a 5 Wraithknight army and a 6(?) Flyrant army, so that alone probably had a big effect on tau placing. Same with combined fire. The other items were smaller issues, though.
Grizzyzz wrote: My biggest curiosity is if, ITC did not rule the new Tau RAW as conservatively as they did, if Tau would have made it higher in the rankings.
From some of the lists I heard people talking about, it didn't seem like their were very many really thought out Tau lists.. mainly OSC spam; I say this because I realize this could also change things in and of itself.
Yes I am a biased Tau player that loves to see his favorite army do well at events. =D (but who doesn't?)
Hoping to get some more data from FLG for a deeper dive, but it's a decent snapshot at what's going on in the competitive scene at the moment.
Also props! Good write up. Well chosen charts.. having a math background, I hate when people use biased and misleading statistics. =)
I played Tau, and was ranked fairly high (I'd guess 6th ish, as I should have been the top 4-0-1) going into the 6th round, after that I dropped to 26th I believe. I played with both multiple ghostkeels and the piranha formation and posted about it earlier on in this thread post-lvo.
I agree that some of these should be revoted (which they will be) and were done too conservatively, that being said, I don't feel the nerfs hurt me drastically. Not nerfing them may have pushed my tie to a win (also not messing up a rule in that game would have), but that was also against another tau player in KP who used Riptide Wing/Stormsurges, and was also playing to get into top 8 and was beat by Alex fennel in game 6.
I lost to Alan in game 6 and his demons, and don't feel the nerfs impacted that game at all, and that was the game that truly kept me out. It was a terrible match I didn't have an answer for and it showed.
So long story short, as a tau player who was there and played with the stuff that got a bit of the "nerf" so to speak - I don't think it changed my placing or the other tau players I spoke to in a large way, though I still don't feel they were necessary - Tau still aren't the boogiemen Eldar/Demons/Thunderstar are, and even un-nerfed are more on par with Necrons/Gladius if anything in terms of power level.
I like the ITC mods to Tau and feel the army would be way overpowered without them. Tau imo is still a top army and I think they will do better at big events as the year progresses.
Dozer Blades wrote: I like the ITC mods to Tau and feel the army would be way overpowered without them. Tau imo is still a top army and I think they will do better at big events as the year progresses.
I remember you saying something in the thread for 1500 points about "we can't change anything until we see results and have verification"
Dozer Blades wrote: I like the ITC mods to Tau and feel the army would be way overpowered without them. Tau imo is still a top army and I think they will do better at big events as the year progresses.
Of course you do, you are a marine and CSM player. So taking it down a notch is in your best interest.
The problem then all you will see is Riptide and Ghostkeel spam. I know no marine player that enjoys a constant stream of Riptides in a tournament.
Dozer Blades wrote: I like the ITC mods to Tau and feel the army would be way overpowered without them. Tau imo is still a top army and I think they will do better at big events as the year progresses.
Of course you do, you are a marine and CSM player. So taking it down a notch is in your best interest.
That's about as mature as "of course you don't like the netfs, you're a tau player".
Dozer Blades wrote: I like the ITC mods to Tau and feel the army would be way overpowered without them. Tau imo is still a top army and I think they will do better at big events as the year progresses.
Of course you do, you are a marine and CSM player. So taking it down a notch is in your best interest.
That's about as mature as "of course you don't like the netfs, you're a tau player".
Stating a fact of bias is immature ? Please. I also play KDK and Daemons. I only want a fair option polled. If the community seems fit to leave the conservative view so be it. Yes I'm lobbying, because I like my tau. So what?
I think we took the bait unfortunately! Better to only respond to posts that support their argument rather than just "I like X" or "I don't like Y" and then speculation about why that is...
Target's account of taking Tau to the LVO is a great example of a supported post (where, for the record, it looks like the nerfs didn't hurt him even though I don't think they're all needed).
I was just casually looking at these, and noticed the Warp Hunter has Spirit Stones, Holo-Fields and Star Engines, yet hasn't paid any points for them. I assume whoever compiled these lists made mistake, since the base cost is 185 points without any equipment.
EDIT:
Wait a second. He was using the old outdated rules for the Warp Hunter, despite new ones already being out? I mean, the winner of the tournament had a Skathach Wraithknight from the Mymeara 2nd edition, the same book where Warp Hunter costs 185 points without equipment, but the runner up had a Warp Hunter from a 2013 book where it only costs 145 points base?
No the warp hunter had no gear and cost 185. Maybe the army builder program he was using wasnt updated so they tried to make the points fit by adding stuff to it. Those arent the lists as turned in by the players they are as compiled by that website.
OrdoSean wrote: No the warp hunter had no gear and cost 185. Maybe the army builder program he was using wasnt updated so they tried to make the points fit by adding stuff to it. Those arent the lists as turned in by the players they are as compiled by that website.
"Juuuullliiioooooooo!"
. Didn't the final game come down to victory points as well, it was so close?
Just in case one event 
. Cheers for the responsiveness on all the requests lately!
