Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I’m running a tournament similar to NOVA format in a few months. I’ll have a win condition / tie-breaker / tie-breaker for each of the four rounds. The last tournament I ran had the following rotating goals:

5 objectives (one central and one in the center of each table quarter)

Table quarters (scored by Victory Points)

5 selected Kill Points

This time I want to have four rotating goals. Some players mentioned that the Table Quarter goal is hard to judge who’s winning, especially when playing an unfamiliar army. I’d like to replace Table Quarters with another “capturing” condition. At first I thought about just capturing the 4 objectives that were in each table quarter, but this is redundant when the other capture tie-breaker or goal is 5 objectives.

What if I have the central objective and two other objectives as a red poker chips, and the other two objectives in the table quarters as white poker chips. The 5 objective goal will be all the poker chips, but the second “capture” goal will be the three red poker chips. When the deployment is table quarters the 3 objectives would be the central objective and the objective markers not in deployment zones. When the deployment is pitched battle or dawn of war, the players will be allowed to place a red poker chip on top of one table quarter objective.

To make it different from the 5 objective goal, I’ll use Stelek’s suggested method for capturing. It still takes a troop unit to capture, but they count as two points and all other units count as one point. The player with the most points within 3” of the objective and has a capturing unit captures the objective. This will make it harder to contest the 3 objectives. For example, if there is a unit of Space Marines on the central objective and an Eldar Vyper within 3 inches, then it would count as a contested objective for the goal of 5 objectives, but count as captured by the Space Marines for the goal of 3 objectives.

My four rotating goals would then be:

5 objectives (standard capture)

176+ Victory Point difference

3 objectives (modified capture)

4+ Kill Point difference

Would this be too confusing or too similar to the 5 objective goal?

I like the thought that you're putting into it.

My immediate reaction is to say that your previous event looks stacked a bit in favor of MSU, and I appreciate that you're changing things up.

I'm not entirely clear why you're not doing two objectives at all. The core missions in 40k are supposed to be KP, 2 objectives, and a variable number of objectives between 3-5.

IMO the better set of four primary goals would be:
5 objectives
3 objectives
2 objectives
KP

Then you could use VPs as a tiebreaker.

I know you don't like "quarters," but it's very functionally similar to 2 objectives, without having just 7 objectives on the board to score at all times (since that's a relevant component of the NOVA format). It's still largely the "draw" mission, but is a little more flexible.

You can also have scoring units be the operator for Quarters, or whatever you like ... PLUS Quarters (at least in the 2010 NOVA Open) are specifically playtested and designed to slightly favor deathstars, or at least more valuable units, over MSU ... so it tends to balance out 5 objectives. See whiskey40k blog treatise on purpose behind mission design for more on that (link avail. on request, but easy enough to find there).

VPs as the final tiebreaker is a good idea. I also would suggest 3 goals ... I'm not sure 4 is really required, and it complicates the mission further - using only 3, you get just as much variety, can recycle missions used before or just further shuffle the combo involving deployment style, and you're g2g.

Finally, Nominate 5 KP is directly the opposite in effect to standard KP - it strongly reinforces MSU armies that can afford to just reserve or hide whatever components are nominated, b/c their army is built on spammy redundancy. In fact, the spammier your army is, the better it can just cheese the nominate-5-KP game. It's a bad mission, and was ill-received by many (I'm sure not all) of the players at the BFS that I spoke to.

We've been playtesting a "win-by-x" KP mission that is more tie-able, and a little more recoverable for people who draw absurd match-ups in terms of KP differential ... but still actually favors armies optimized a little for KP, and so keeps to book mission standardization. We've found a good sweet spot so far in Win-by4 (win-by-5 is too high).

Thanks for the thoughts Mike. I've been modeling my scenarios after yours. I have 4 rounds, so I want 4 rotating missions. I still only have Win Condition and then two tie breakers. Last tournament only 7 of 32 games were decided on goal 2 or 3.

For my 5 selected kill points I had players nominate them after deployment. Any that came in from reserve on the last player turn were counted as earned. I hope this helps with "hiding" them. It was hard to do with Daemons though. They split there army on turn 1. The only units I saw hiding were full assault squads hiding behind buildings to avoid getting killed.

I'll try the win by 4+ KPs this time around. I'm just looking for that 4th scenario. I may have Quarters as main Goal in round 1 and then rotate it off in the following rounds.

Ryan - I can understand the rotating goals .... I'm just not sure it's a reliable metric.

We go off % of goals scored, and it's more fine-tuned when the 3 goals you can score are always the same.

That said, it's merely opinion-dropping/sharing at this point.

Nothing prevents d3'ing and repeating a mission for the fourth round - this also nullifies people "tailoring" for goals as well, since any one of the three primaries is guaranteed to be repeated.


Again, just my $.02

The problem is that there are 3 obvious goals you can use, KPs, Objectives and VPs, but you really have to stretch to find a 4th one that not just a modified version of the other goals.

Quarters can work but is kinda similar to objectives. Its probably still a better option than adding modified capturing criteria as another win condition as thats still going to keep the same units focused on objectives in the same way. The other option you haven't considered would be capturing terrain features, can't say I'm a fan and I know it would be a nightmare for organisers to sort out or balance (as you have get terrain perfect on every board), but its still an option.

The main problem I've run into using the 5 selected KPs is not so much that it advantages MSU armies (it helps lists which have spammed/identical units but they don't have to be MSU), but that it doesn't really work with two competitive players as 90% of the time both players get 4-5 KPs by the end of the game. Outside of Green Tide lists almost everyone tends to have at least 5 easy KPs, any kind of transport (which are incredibly common) and anything smaller than a 10 man Marine unit is usually going to die if you focus on it. I think the 5 selected KPs is built to work as part of the 5KP/5 Objective mission where they are all counting towards the same points to get the win (as in you add them together as part of the same score). I don't think there is much point using them as a victory condition on their own. I realise with this system you just drop to the next win condition on the list, but I don't think you are going to get enough wins using this condition for it to be worthwhile.

I was thinking of having the two other poker chips in between the players deployment zones rather than on top of the normal 5. Like below for the pitched battle setup.

W___________W

___R___R___R

W___________W

Would this work with quarters though?

I would seriously consider including a regular Kill Point game.

I've seen a lot of tournaments recently who change the KP mission so that it no longer effects your army build - for example, KP for killing all HQ units, or both armies get the same amount of KP to distribute.

By doing this, you remove one of the main purposes of Kill Points - to limit MSU or heavily Mech armies. With a Mech army, you have an advantage in Objective games, but a disadvantage in KP ones. As soon as you remove the disadvantage, everyone goes Mech.

It's sorta like reverse-comp!

That's another discussion, one that's often had, but just by changing KP you don't automatically cause that change.

Additionally, that presupposes the purpose of KP - something the designers themselves have reputed by explaining KP as being more for simple math.

That said, I think there are so many people so desperately convinced that if you don't have KP you don't have a "fair" tournament, it can't hurt to have a KP mission that is a little more toned down, but still keeps to the same "purpose."

ArbitorIan wrote:you remove one of the main purposes of Kill Points - to limit MSU or heavily Mech armies. With a Mech army, you have an advantage in Objective games, but a disadvantage in KP ones. As soon as you remove the disadvantage, everyone goes Mech.

Did GW ever say that Kill Points was to limit MSU or mech armies? Why would they honestly want to limit sales of their products. It seems like they would encourage buying units and transports so they could increase sales. Now to get those prices down so I can afford more armies...

I play Space Marine bikers and have 8 kill points in my 1750 tournament army. I don't do this for KP reasons, it's just the army that I play. I love it when people spread out to take objectives - it makes my job easier to use my mobility and kill them piece meal. I really hate it when they lump their army together, as it makes my job destroying them very hard. Last turns I turbo boost back to objectives and use my long bases to capture more than one objective when possible.

I got rid of Kill Points because I got tired of lop sided scenarios. I'd show up with 8 KP vs 14 and win 12 to 6.

Maybe I'll match players for the KP round based on the # of kill points in there army. That way 8 won't play 26.

It may not have been intended from GW, but it is a very compelling reason for having a KP scenario in a tournament. Saying that it won't lead to an even greater MSU dominance is simply false, Nova open was dominated by them from what I have read. Space wolves and IG don't need a bigger boost than they already have

Ian, on the flip side of the argument....

A competitive player is going to bring their list to a tournament regardless of what the missions are. My Dark Eldar and Orks - the same lists go to all tournaments, with no modification (except for point changes as required).

My Dark Eldar list had 13 vehicles, 10 of which had units in it, one with two units in it - meaning that in most games, I'm running 24 killpoints. That same DE list went around the country with me all year no change. In a killpoint game, I don't have enough points tied up in any particular unit that losing one hurts - whereas I had many different targets firing back. It comes down to me being able to fire at more of your things, and you being able to fire at less of mine.

I think that's why tournaments have started abandoning killpoint missions - they are irrelevant. They don't discourage MSU armies because competitive players know how much more potent a well-crafted MSU army is - and will bring them anyway.

MVBrandt wrote:That's another discussion, one that's often had, but just by changing KP you don't automatically cause that change.

Additionally, that presupposes the purpose of KP - something the designers themselves have reputed by explaining KP as being more for simple math.

That said, I think there are so many people so desperately convinced that if you don't have KP you don't have a "fair" tournament, it can't hurt to have a KP mission that is a little more toned down, but still keeps to the same "purpose."

agreed, it doesn't automatically cause a complete change but it decrease the average KP at an event, thereby increasing the variety and playstyles of armies as well as blunting somewhat the power of MSU builds for one game. @ the OP, consider a standard KP game since many players consider and expect it as part of 5th edition 40k regardless of any academic points.

FYI, the NOVA Open was not "dominated" by MSU armies.

A lot of people jumped to that conclusion, but the statistics and distribution did not support it. High and low KP armies were all present, and statistical success was fairly evenly distributed.

As far as variety, we had no identical lists, out of 88 in 40k, nor did we have an excess of IG and SW; the most common army was actually Vanilla Marines, and Demons did the statistically best in terms of w/l ratio.

Wolves won, with a 17 KP army that beat 24 and 22 KP armies in the semis and finals, and the finals themselves included armies ranging from 12-24 kp.

*shrug*

MVBrandt wrote:FYI, the NOVA Open was not "dominated" by MSU armies.

A lot of people jumped to that conclusion, but the statistics and distribution did not support it. High and low KP armies were all present, and statistical success was fairly evenly distributed.

*shrug*

your tourney average of KP in armies present was about 20-25% higher than a comparable sized tourny (adepticon). not including KP in any meaningful way does increase killpoints and decrease army and playstyle variety; no one is claiming that it makes armies identical. also, you may be surprised to know that a sizable portion of players don't consider a 17 KP army to be low or even medium killpoints.

Also, weren't like half of the finalists SW MSU builds? Speaking about the final 8 here, which I believe is a good indicator of the trends supported by the format.

There was one SW MSU build in the finals. By which I of course mean actual MSU - 5man grey hunter squads in rhinos and plasmabacks, 5 man inquisitorial stormtrooper squads w/ plasmaguns, spare empty plasmabacks bought for trips minsize 5-man fang squads, 5-man wolf scout squads, cheaped out throwaway lords and solo twolf cav selections. It lost its first round of the finals.

The winner was rolling with Njal, a 255 point Lord, and generally 7-9-man GH squads in rhinos (instead of spamming 5-mans in plasmabacks). So, no on the winner.

The other SW in the finals had predators, large thunderwolf cav squads, etc., I think 13 or 14 kill points, maybe 15.

The finals was between a 20-some KP MSU BA player w/ Mephiston and trips autolas preds, and the aforementioned SW player.

Warboss - someone tried to "prove" the KP average at Adepticon by studying pictures of armies, with no idea what the actual KP breakdown was. So, I would hesitate to use that data.

As far as size ranges, I think you'll find that most players would see sub-10KP as "low," anywhere in the mid teens as medium, and true spammy 20+ KP armies as "high." I think we can all agree 17 is on the up end of medium, but it's certainly not MSU, and - as was the case with Tony - is typically just reflective of a marine or similar army that runs with rhinos instead of on foot, and is led by characters. 6 10-man grey hunter squads in rhinos w/ Njal and Logan isn't 2,000 points, but is already 14 KP. Not MSU at all.

Does anyone think having 5 objectives and 3 modified scoring objectives is too confusing?

Dashofpepper wrote:A competitive player is going to bring their list to a tournament regardless of what the missions are. My Dark Eldar and Orks - the same lists go to all tournaments, with no modification (except for point changes as required).

Dash, just to clarify, do you mean to imply that Alex Fennell, Matt Cassidy, and Alex Kallend are not competitive players? Because that's what you're doing.

Dashofpepper wrote:I think that's why tournaments have started abandoning killpoint missions - they are irrelevant. They don't discourage MSU armies because competitive players know how much more potent a well-crafted MSU army is - and will bring them anyway.

I disagree. SOME competitive players don't care. Others factor it in.

MVBrandt wrote:Warboss - someone tried to "prove" the KP average at Adepticon by studying pictures of armies, with no idea what the actual KP breakdown was. So, I would hesitate to use that data.

lol, yeah, i remember seeing as it was me and i did it to refute your claim that getting rid of KP didn't change the makeup of armies brought. so, you hestitate to use the only data available but would rather make a claim based on no data regarding adepticon? my post is still somewhere in that KP thread and the counts are reproducible as i labeled each one for the pics in the gallery; you're free to count up the same armies (as i said, i assumed MAX killpoints in almost every circumstance i could... i.e. 3 sentinetls = 3 KP and not 1 for a squadron). dash said his army doesn't change due to killpoints being present or not but others (granted to statistically win less often) might. my tourney army is a deathwing force that is quite low on KP (<10) and wins almost every game they play with KP but doesn't do so well in others necessarily; i'd never want to bring it to a tourney that only favors KP heavy forces as it has some trouble in the other types (objectives) due to a lack of mobility compared to MSU mech armies and an outdated codex.

warboss wrote: dash said his army doesn't change due to killpoints being present or not but others (granted to statistically win less often) might.

I understand your point, but I'd go further. I don't grant that any of the three players I mentioned above win less often than Dash, and all three are players whom I know take KPs into account in building armies.

MVBrandt wrote:Additionally, that presupposes the purpose of KP - something the designers themselves have reputed by explaining KP as being more for simple math.

Ah, I wasn't aware of that. I'd still suggest that the KP side of things helps 'balance' the book missions (below), intentionally or otherwise.

Dashofpepper wrote:A competitive player is going to bring their list to a tournament regardless of what the missions are. My Dark Eldar and Orks - the same lists go to all tournaments, with no modification (except for point changes as required).

Fair enough, and you and your Dark Eldar list are pretty famed for being very good. I'd suggest that your army and tactics work around the inherent disadvantage of lots of light vehicles in a KP game. Which is great. But the disadvantage is still there - in a KP game, it is a disadvantage to have a high-KP army and an advantage to have a low-KP one. It's just that your army has other advantages that outweigh this.



I certainly take KP into account when building an army, and some other people seem do as well. I don't think the removal of KP missions instantly makes every single person take Mech, but i do believe that removing the KP issue removes a barrier to MSU and mech. I'd certainly be more inclined to take MSU if I knew there was no disadvantage, and this therefore changes the game you're playing in the tournament quite a lot from the the game you play 'from the rulebook'.

This argument - that the tournament is not playing 'real' 40k, but their 'house rules' version - is an argument often levelled at comp scores, which most people by now agree is a bad idea. But changing the balance of missions from the rulebook has exactly the same effect.