Switch Theme:

BAO 2017: July 29-30th: 8th ed format updated!  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Awesome Autarch






San Diego, California

Possibly. That is the one rule we are leaning towards changing for tournament play as in our games it is problematic and ultimately not fun nor balanced. We are looking at altering that rule to the player that finishes deploying first gets +1 to go first.

100% of the play testers mirrored this sentiment and most of the events associated with each group are going this way.

   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut



Shoreline

Hopefully you guys (ITC) implement that change soon! I also like the unintended tactic it will have! Knowing you have less units to deploy will you deploy aggressively or not? Right now if you know you have less units to deploy most people just deploy very aggressively and pray a "6" is not rolled hahaha.
   
Made in us
[ADMIN]
President of the Mat Ward Fan Club






Los Angeles, CA

 Reecius wrote:
Thanks for the input guys but a LOT of people are coming to the BAO playing 8th only a few times. Playing to the book makes it easier for them to upload the information.

In the many, many, many games of 8th Frankie and I have played, I can say with total honesty this objective placing and then choosing deployment zones issue has not been as big of a deal as it is being made out to be by some of you. I am not dismissing your opinions in the slightest, you are welcome to them, but for this first event, we're running with it. After people get a chance to try it in a tournament setting, we can start looking at making adjustments.

As stated, I am sure the missions will evolve, but for now, let's keep it simple and start from a baseline that is common to everyone.


Reece,

In all the games you played, did either of you specifically think about how objective placement system could be gamed to give your side a major advantage on objectives and then try to implement that plan? Because the system can absolutely be gamed, even with random deployment type thrown in. And unless you guys were specifically trying to game that particular system, then it obviously wouldn't show up as any kind of problem.

You've said that when players don't just try to smash each other, the missions matter more. If that's the case, then one player automatically knowing they're going to have at least one more objective (maybe 2) in or really near to their deployment zone than their opponent undeniably gives them an advantage.

So just asking again: in your testing, has the player who gets to place the last objective specifically tried to game the system by setting up all his objective near a single corner? Has that player also capitalized on an initial corner placement by their opponent (to essentially get an extra objective marker near/in their deployment zone)?

Because again, I can show you a system where the player that gets to place the last objective (in a 4 objective game) has either 2 or 3 of the objectives in or really near his deployment zone when the opponent only ever gets 1 in or near their deployment zone.

I just honestly don't understand how adding one extra roll-off after objectives have finished being placed screws anything up, especially when it definitively does make it at least a huge 50/50 gamble for a player to game the objective placement as described above.


I play (click on icons to see pics): DQ:70+S++G(FAQ)M++B-I++Pw40k92/f-D+++A+++/areWD104R+T(D)DM+++
yakface's 40K rule #1: Although the rules allow you to use modeling to your advantage, how badly do you need to win your toy soldier games?
yakface's 40K rule #2: Friends don't let friends start a MEQ army.
yakface's 40K rule #3: Codex does not ALWAYS trump the rulebook, so please don't say that!
Waaagh Dakka: click the banner to learn more! 
   
Made in us
Flailing Flagellant




Tacoma, WA, USA

Would it be more tactical if the rule was turned on its head?

The player that didn't place the last objective chooses deployment zone.

Can this be gamed like the opposite?
   
Made in us
[ADMIN]
President of the Mat Ward Fan Club






Los Angeles, CA

 alextroy wrote:
Would it be more tactical if the rule was turned on its head?

The player that didn't place the last objective chooses deployment zone.

Can this be gamed like the opposite?


Nope. As long as the objectives are always an equal number (like they are in the rulebook), then having the player that places the first objective be the one that chooses deployment zones pretty much fixes that particular issue. That would be another really easy fix to implement as well.


I play (click on icons to see pics): DQ:70+S++G(FAQ)M++B-I++Pw40k92/f-D+++A+++/areWD104R+T(D)DM+++
yakface's 40K rule #1: Although the rules allow you to use modeling to your advantage, how badly do you need to win your toy soldier games?
yakface's 40K rule #2: Friends don't let friends start a MEQ army.
yakface's 40K rule #3: Codex does not ALWAYS trump the rulebook, so please don't say that!
Waaagh Dakka: click the banner to learn more! 
   
Made in us
Fresh-Faced New User




Hmmm... NOVA vs FLG anyone?
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Doubtful, Reece, the AdeptiCon guys, and I have been playtesting and planning rules / etc. together for months as part of the 8th ed playtest team. We also worked together to match our point scales so BCP works for both formats and mission sets interchangeably, allowing ITC missions to be used from NOVA, Renegade, and LVO/BAO with ease. It'll remain similar with event rulings and the like. Mr. one-poster

I appreciate the opportunity, however, to talk about how tightly Reece and I have been and will continue to be working together to support the community.
   
Made in us
Flailing Flagellant




Tacoma, WA, USA

As long as I've made one useful suggestion, I shall suggest another.

If you implement a roll for 1st turn, the player that finished deploying first wins ties on the roll off. This gets it completed in one rolls, avoiding that annoying succession of rerolls when that player keeps rolling one less than the other. You know it happens!
   
Made in us
Monstrously Massive Big Mutant





 alextroy wrote:
As long as I've made one useful suggestion, I shall suggest another.

If you implement a roll for 1st turn, the player that finished deploying first wins ties on the roll off. This gets it completed in one rolls, avoiding that annoying succession of rerolls when that player keeps rolling one less than the other. You know it happens!


The issue with that is that winning ties (because of not getting those re-rolls) is about 8% worse of a chance to go first (58% to 66%). I almost feel like depending on the difference in army size that more than a +1 could be justified. But that would need testing on how effective low drop armies could be. Having more drops than your opponent is a pretty significant deployment advantage.
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran






why not just go with 5 set Objectives ?

ITC and NOVA have been doing that for years. I looked at the missions and in all honesty the missions using 4 and 6 just go to 5. I don't see it effecting anything.


Do we really believe "Randomly" placed Objectives are going to start being a thing ?!

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/06/15 22:43:49


 
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut





Ottawa Ontario Canada

Any thought to adding limits on wounding, like range and los? Currently if a whole units only sees and is in range of 1 of out 50 guardsmen, the firing unit could in theory wipe the target unit given enough dice. On that same line of though, limiting artillery to not targeting units concealed entirely under ruin roofs/skyshields an so on.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/06/17 00:10:22


 
   
Made in us
Awesome Autarch






San Diego, California

Hey gang, sorry for the delay, was swamped.

@Yakface

I understand fully your point, my friend and it has merit. However, I believe your concern is not going to be something that needs to be addressed for long as I am willing to bet money that the BAO will be one of the only Major events to run book missions. NOVA is already going NOVA missions, and we plan to roll out ITC missions again very soon. If enough folks attending the BAO want to run ITC style missions, we will. The plan for now is to keep it simple to let folks upload the game.

@Tautastic

Yeah, and last night's live game illustrates the point well, I think. You can take a powerful 3 drop army that chooses first or second turn in 5/6 games. It's not super awesome for competitive play, IMO. And conversely, you take a high unit count army and you don't ever get to choose first or second turn.

@Primark G

NOVA vs. us? Lol, we work very closely together and are friends. As Mike noted, our missions are all integrated with one another to mix and match and have fun, competitive games.

@Zedsdead

Yeah, we will have something like that in the ITC missions when we roll those out.

@Crablezworth

No, no plans to change any of that. It is different than what everyone is used to, but it's fine, IMO. Just takes time to acclimate to it.

@Thread

So, on the docket for BAO attendees: +1 to go first for the player that finishes deploying first, and as I forgot how unsuited to competitive play KP can be, we're looking at changing the KP mission slightly to read: when you destroy a unit you gain a number of Kill Points equal to their power level. Easy peasy.

If enough of you want set objectives in multiple objective missions, we can roll with it. I am not married to the idea of forcing book missions if folks think it will make the game less fun at the BAO.

   
Made in us
Leader of the Sept






I like it. Alot of us are doing book missions anyway so why not?

Bullockist wrote:I think a mini of hotsauceman1 rending the overly serious posters of dakka in twain with a flexing of humourous intent would be a winning mini.

4000pts 2000 1500
 
   
Made in us
[ADMIN]
President of the Mat Ward Fan Club






Los Angeles, CA

 Reecius wrote:
So, on the docket for BAO attendees: +1 to go first for the player that finishes deploying first, and as I forgot how unsuited to competitive play KP can be, we're looking at changing the KP mission slightly to read: when you destroy a unit you gain a number of Kill Points equal to their power level. Easy peasy.

If enough of you want set objectives in multiple objective missions, we can roll with it. I am not married to the idea of forcing book missions if folks think it will make the game less fun at the BAO.


Wow, that KP solution is great! Although it does make the ancillary objectives (First Blood, etc.) almost pointless. Maybe make those objectives worth 3 or 5 pts. for that one mission?



I play (click on icons to see pics): DQ:70+S++G(FAQ)M++B-I++Pw40k92/f-D+++A+++/areWD104R+T(D)DM+++
yakface's 40K rule #1: Although the rules allow you to use modeling to your advantage, how badly do you need to win your toy soldier games?
yakface's 40K rule #2: Friends don't let friends start a MEQ army.
yakface's 40K rule #3: Codex does not ALWAYS trump the rulebook, so please don't say that!
Waaagh Dakka: click the banner to learn more! 
   
Made in us
Sister Oh-So Repentia




Los Angeles, CA

Have you guys decided how you'll handle factions regarding the ITC rankings ? BAO is a pretty big deal in the season so it's worth asking.
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut



Shoreline

I hope you guys make that change official soon! Have an ITC tournament in July. Would love a chance of going 1st!!!

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/06/21 20:59:44


 
   
Made in us
Awesome Autarch






San Diego, California

Thanks, guys!

@Yak

Yeah, we were going to multiply them by 5 or so, I had to do some math to figure out where the sweet spot was on that. But, you are right.

@RabbitMaster

We do have all the factions ready to rock. I am trying to get all the ITC stuff updated this week but I have been buried. I will do everything possible to get all of that info updated by Friday.

@Tautastic

Haha, fair enough! Yeah, I will get everything done this week by hook or by crook. It's actually not too much as we mostly just go off the book now, thank the Emperor! GW has been so awesome about getting stuff taken care of on their end.

   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut



Shoreline

@Reecius

Awesome! I do not like the recent changes in GW though...My wallet is crying...
   
Made in us
Never Forget Isstvan!





Santa Clara County

The Mountain View store may not be able to contain all this goodness...

I can't wait!

No madam, 40,000 is the year that this game is set in. Not how much it costs. Though you may have a point. - GW Fulchester
The Gatling Guns have flamethrowers on them because this is 40k - DOW III
 
   
Made in us
Teleporting to the Battle Barge





Norfolk, VA

Can a player during deployment when its their turn to deploy a unit, designate a unit of Terminators, decide they will deepstrike and therefor count as their "unit deployed".

Essentially the opponent(w/non reserve units) ends up deploying several units to an empty table. Provided the above happens a few times.


I buy and trade minis, that's what I do.
40k and tabletop games in Hampton Roads/Tidewater, VA <~~~Click that 
   
Made in us
Blood-Drenched Death Company Marine






That is how it works.

“You know, the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common, They don’t alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit their views.” -- The Doctor 
   
Made in us
Teleporting to the Battle Barge





Norfolk, VA

 Crimson Devil wrote:
That is how it works.


Cool.

I buy and trade minis, that's what I do.
40k and tabletop games in Hampton Roads/Tidewater, VA <~~~Click that 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran






personally i think set objectives prevent alot of gaming of the system

1, 3 or 5

 
   
Made in us
Never Forget Isstvan!





Santa Clara County

Forgeworld indexs in or out?

No madam, 40,000 is the year that this game is set in. Not how much it costs. Though you may have a point. - GW Fulchester
The Gatling Guns have flamethrowers on them because this is 40k - DOW III
 
   
Made in us
Blood-Drenched Death Company Marine






From the Warhammer 40,000 8th Edition ITC Format Guidelines:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bUs0HrJ3f6YzR6mWlT1LRLq0i9_0ekf7ah9WhCTxsIo/edit#heading=h.8wlatfftz5vh

All current Games Workshop & Forgeworld 8th edition Warhammer 40,000 source material may be used to build your Battle-forged army.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/06/25 18:17:07


“You know, the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common, They don’t alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit their views.” -- The Doctor 
   
Made in us
Fresh-Faced New User




Reece really helped make Forgeworld much more accepted and mainstream.
   
 
Forum Index » Tournament Discussions
Go to: