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.
2014/12/11 05:25:45
Subject: 1850 Competitive - Jy2's Pentyrant Tyranids vs Eldar w/Tyrannic War Veterans (Completed)
I agree that missions at the tournament level have room for improvement. An interesting idea would be looking at the mission formats from the tournament that Seam Nayden won.
It had the ability to give the player a great deal of control over whether he utilized progressive or end-game scoring, as well as what most (IIRC) of the primaries/secondaries were. I think it let you pick one from a set of five or something.
I'm not sure that that level of complete control is good, but there's something to be said for setting win conditions after you have seen your opponents list within a certain framework. Sort of like surveying the field and developing a strategy based on that. For example, you're never going to go up against an elite army and say, "ok if we can kill enough squads, we'll take the victory men! Never mind that 5 of their squads amount to 80 percent of their army whereas it would be 30 percent of ours! Victory is ours if we can do this!"
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/11 05:27:40
2014/12/11 05:47:57
Subject: 1850 Competitive - Jy2's Pentyrant Tyranids vs Eldar w/Tyrannic War Veterans (Completed)
Red Corsair wrote: Honestly the biggest fault I have with their format is scoring and tallying points at the bottom of the turn which we are in agreement on it seems.
My other main complaint is that the primary and secondary never alternate. Unless I am wrong here, but it seems that maelstrom is never the primary, its not good enough to tell players they have an alternative to killing invisideathstars and spammed FMC's when you MUST achieve the tertiary along with the secondary to overcome primary, and because first blood is so hard to get from the aforementioned lists I think you can see where I am going here. Those two changes would be incredibly simple and IMHO would fix many of the problems that they already have issue with (invis and rerolls).
I was ranting a bit before mainly because I hate when people knock maelstrom when it is not nearly as busted as they make it out to be. So apologies for the tangent and long windedness, I am a bit tired ATM
Aside from that I think they should Allow for more detachments. Not more sources, just more detachments since some armies like DE and Orks are kneecapped hard with only two detachments being allowed.
I actually like your idea of alternating between Eternal and Modified Maelstrom missions as primary/secondary. However, it'll take more than just me to convince Frontline of making this type of change to their format. This is more of a wishlist request than an actual balance-fixing request, so it'll take quite a few people more to petition them to consider this request. I will mention this to Reece the next time I go up to Frontline, but unless enough people make waves, my voice will just be a small splash in the ocean.
Personally, I love the Maelstrom missions. I just don't think it is balanced enough for true competitive play. My idea of competitive play is that everyone plays to the same goal and not to ever-shifting goals. This way, the champion is the one who outplayed everyone else and not the one who got all the right objectives. I want the champion to be determined by the same standard, not one that is determined by different standards every time they play. The less randomness you introduce into the system, the truer your champion is. Just my opinion.
jy2 wrote: Sorry, but I don't know of any tourneys in my area that runs pure Maelstrom. But the info does not have to come from a tournament. Just play a regular game of Maelstrom to get the info that you want.
And you don't need ME to test it out. I am not the one who needs persuading. I think YOU should try out my list yourself in a Maelstrom game. Play it against the best Maelstrom player/army in your meta and see how it fares.
1st, my suggestion about trying a Maelstrom RTT was more about giving you a chance to see Maelstrom in action rather than test out this particular list.
As far as how this list would perform in a Maelstrom meta. I'm a pretty savvy Tyranid player. I can tell you exactly how it would perform in my common meta. Grey Knights stomp the tar out of it. One Tau player probably torches you by killing 4-5 of the flyrants (2 Skyray, 2 skyfire burstides, buffmander + suites or misilesides). There are several space marine mech msu, you should have no trouble tabling them. Salamander drop pods give you trouble. Killing 1 Flyrant with the alpha strike, and then putting drop pods on most or all of the objectives. The 2 CSM lists get tabled. The 3 Space wolves probably get tabled. The farsight bomb player gets tabled. AD Lance gets tabled. 3 Ork players probably get tabled, or beat on points if they bring a stompa. Eldar Wraith spam gives you trouble. 3 Wraith Knights that can score objectives and kill any flyrant that lands is a problem. 3 IG mech get table or just beat on points if they brings a baneblade. IG blob gets tabled. Necron Flying Circus could go either way, depends on how many 6's the Annihilation barges roll. Summoning Daemons could go either way. Bestpack Demons win easily. Dark eldar Venom Spam probably gets tabled. Wave Serpent spam could go either way. Probably wins on points. Eldar Jetbike spam wins on points (unless you kill the Wraith Knights).
Its an unbalanced list that would perform toward the high/middle of the pack in my Maelstrom meta. It has little board control, and thus little ability to score early, and it suffers from a distinct lack of ability to kill MC's like Wraith Knights, Dread Knights, or Riptides. It will kill them eventually, but they come in 2 and 3's, so killing them all is a big problem.
I wonder how you would plan to play against a list like this in your BAO missions:
Spoiler:
Autarch
5 Fire Dragons, Wave Serpent TL Scatter Laser, Holo‐fields 5 Fire Dragons, Wave Serpent TL Scatter Laser, Holo‐fields
I agree that missions at the tournament level have room for improvement. An interesting idea would be looking at the mission formats from the tournament that Seam Nayden won.
It had the ability to give the player a great deal of control over whether he utilized progressive or end-game scoring, as well as what most (IIRC) of the primaries/secondaries were. I think it let you pick one from a set of five or something.
I'm not sure that that level of complete control is good, but there's something to be said for setting win conditions after you have seen your opponents list within a certain framework. Sort of like surveying the field and developing a strategy based on that. For example, you're never going to go up against an elite army and say, "ok if we can kill enough squads, we'll take the victory men! Never mind that 5 of their squads amount to 80 percent of their army whereas it would be 30 percent of ours! Victory is ours if we can do this!"
I actually like that idea. Never tried out the 11th Company missions, but I think I'll give it a look-see. Sounds interesting.
Its a list I haven't beaten yet, and even though I haven't ever faced it with one of my top lists, I don't have much hope.
Challenged excepted! Right after I kick the crap out of Tau.
BTW, I don't think that Eldar list is as good as mine and so I may modify it somewhat (plus, I don't have all of those models).
So would you like to see me play against it in Maelstrom or BAO missions? Maelstrom would be tougher for my pentyrant army due to all the Eldar super-scorers. Maelstrom would actually favor Mechdar in this case. However, BAO should favor my bugs,
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/11 06:38:33
jy2 wrote: Then you go into the realm where winning isn't determined by the player but rather, by the objectives he draws.
This is the most glaring downside of BAO's Maelstrom format in the first place. The Maelstrom table is basically:
1. Hold your objective (Easily achieved under virtually any circumstances)
2. Hold their objective (Very unlikely to be achieved)
3. Kill a unit (Easily achieved, unless against Deathstars)
4. Kill a unit (Easily achieved, unless against Deathstars)
5. 1 unit in their deployment zone (Easily achieved)
6. 3 of your units in your deployment zone/none of theirs (Highly dependent on matchup/other Maelstrom rolls)
Every game basically came down to who rolled the least 2's (or 1's, depending on which player was which) and 6's. Meanwhile, the huge preponderance of "kill a unit" was an enormous boon to deathstar armies, which is one of the things a Maelstrom format is supposed to mitigate--again, my personal opinion is that the missions completely missed the boat on what Maelstrom is supposed to accomplish competitively, and instead just became LOL RANDOM MISSIONS with no real strategic bearing on the outcome.
jy2 wrote: The only change that I would recommend would probably be that their Maelstrom objectives be rolled for and scored at the each player's turn instead of each game turn. This way, it minimizes the importance of going 2nd in the game for a double-contest (contesting both the Primary and the Secondary).
Renegade actually did do it this way--each player generated missions at the start of their player turn, and scored at the end of their player turn--to completely remove the enormous "going second" advantage. They also defined the two "kill a unit" missions to select targets; one was basically "kill a vehicle or MC" while the other was "kill [anything else]" so that they weren't quite so broad.
And again, it was a pretty wide consensus at the event that the winner of the secondaries seemed completely random and had little resemblence to what actually went on during the game. There was no ability to account for or plan for any of it, and the end result was that the winner was the one who generated more favorable objectives. At this point I feel I've made my opinion on the BAO Maelstrom format pretty clear; I only really bring it back up because I found it odd that you'd say other Maelstrom formats are reduced to who draws the best cards, where I feel that experience has already played out that that is the case with the BAO format.
Now, it's safe to say "straight Maelstrom" isn't an option competitively; even things like "D3 point" cards are enough to make that clear. But there's also such a thing as paring down the system so much that you defeat the point, which is what I think has happened here.
Maelstrom, in my opinion, is intended to act as a counterbalance to the predominant playstyle of 6th and 7th Edition, which is/was having your one (or two) big unkillable units parade around the board bashing the hell out of everything else that exists, completely ignoring any semblence of board control or tactics beyond "kill as many things as physically possible before Turn 5," and then have your weak meaningless Troops jump out at the last moment to stand on the shiny objectives amongst the smoking ruins.
That was Necron Warriors in Night Scythes, that was Eldar Jetbikes behind the ruins, that was Plaguebearers GTG in the forest, that was Cultists in the Bastion, that was Kroot praying they don't pass a reserve roll until Turn 4.
Maelstrom is inherently unbalanced, but the point of that imbalance is to serve as a counter to the imbalance of Eternal War, which results in gameplay as noted above.
And as a quick history lesson, this is not a new concept--you only have to look back as far as (pre-GK) 5th Edition to see that. Remember how unpopular Kill Points were in 5th Ed? Remember how every ten minutes, there'd be a new thread about them out in the tournament forum, complaining about how unfair they were to certain armies? Remember how the "certain armies" they were unfair to were the ones that were winning all the tournaments anyway?
Nobody removed Kill Points from their tournaments because Kill Points was the only thing that made the IG and SW players of the time even consider changing their army types or altering their builds. MSU ruled the day, and MSU hated Kill Points. Balance in a vacuum was not the goal, as Kill Points were inherently imbalanced--the goal was using the smaller imbalance of a single gametype (Kill Points) to attempt to rectify the wider imbalance of the meta at the time.
Well, how do you rectify the "wider imbalance" of hidden Troops leaping out at the last second to hold objectives? You spread six objectives out all over the board and you tell them that sometimes they'll have to hold those objectives on Turns 1, 2, 3 and 4, when the fighting is heavy--instead of just 5, 6 and 7, once everything is long dead. And even if this is not your primary mission, you construct your format in such a way that someone who refuses to adapt to it can lose games as a result.
While it may not get us all the way there (in the same way that Kill Points never got us "all the way there" in 5th), from the testing done so far I have rather high hopes for Adepticon's Maelstrom system. Forcing the top army builds to make hard decisions and play a game they might not be perfectly suited for goes a long way toward that; getting it to all work out and result in some semblence of balance is a much harder goal, but it's certainly worth a shot, so I'm glad people are still trying to come up with a workable competitive Maelstrom system.
2014/12/11 07:34:47
Subject: 1850 Competitive - Jy2's Pentyrant Tyranids vs Eldar w/Tyrannic War Veterans (Completed)
Its a list I haven't beaten yet, and even though I haven't ever faced it with one of my top lists, I don't have much hope.
Challenged excepted! Right after I kick the crap out of Tau.
BTW, I don't think that Eldar list is as good as mine and so I may modify it somewhat (plus, I don't have all of those models).
So would you like to see me play against it in Maelstrom or BAO missions? Maelstrom would be tougher for my pentyrant army due to all the Eldar super-scorers. Maelstrom would actually favor Mechdar in this case. However, BAO should favor my bugs,
Modify it as you see fit. The key challenge is that everything is either in a AV 12/12/10 transport with a 3+ jink or Toughness 8. So there are no soft targets like jet bikes or Warp Spiders. Also, everything is twin linked.
Play it BAO. I don't think it favors you as much as you think. You've got only 2 OS units in your list, and no reasonable way to kill all of the toughness 8, and so it seems like in BAO, you best hope is to get first blood, and then contest objectives on turn 5, praying with all of your might that it doesn't go on until turn 6.
2014/12/11 07:52:40
Subject: Re:1850 Competitive - Jy2's Pentyrant Tyranids vs Eldar w/Tyrannic War Veterans (Completed)
One thing I like about the BAO modified Maelstrom missions is that they are more generic and thus, more fair. For example, kill-a-unit is achievable by any army. However, kill an enemy tank is not quite as fair if you are going up against an Imperial Knight army, an army whose only vehicle is a super-heavy or an army with no vehicles at all. Likewise, kill an MC can be inherently unfair if the opponent is running a wraithknight, riptides or an FMC, especially if you are running an army with little to no shooting (daemons, orks, etc.) or skyfire. The more specific the Maelstrom objective becomes, while it may be more "fun", it also becomes more unbalancing. The BAO Maelstrom objectives are simple objectives that any army has a chance to accomplish. Not only that, but any TAC army should have almost an equal chance of scoring. That's what I like about them. I think that if you KISS (keep-it-simple-son), it is easier to do and more fair. However, once you start adding more and more stuff/options, it gets more and more complicated and things start to become more and more unbalanced. That's just the nature of the beast.
And again, it was a pretty wide consensus at the event that the winner of the secondaries seemed completely random and had little resemblence to what actually went on during the game. There was no ability to account for or plan for any of it, and the end result was that the winner was the one who generated more favorable objectives. At this point I feel I've made my opinion on the BAO Maelstrom format pretty clear; I only really bring it back up because I found it odd that you'd say other Maelstrom formats are reduced to who draws the best cards, where I feel that experience has already played out that that is the case with the BAO format.
I feel that the Maelstrom objectives were included in their missions for 2 reasons mainly.
1. To keep it more in-line with the 7th Ed. missions, or at least with the concept of the 7th Ed. missions.
2. To make the missions more fun. While Maelstrom missions are somewhat random, they do tend to be more dynamic due to the fact that they are different each and every turn. This helps to make the game more interesting. But to limit the impact of the randomness of Maelstrom, the designers made the Maelstrom a Secondary mission objective as opposed to the Primary. This way, you have a clear goal as to how to win the mission, with a bunch of side goals to help you towards another path to victory should the primary goal be too hard. At least that is the concept IMO.
Maybe people have outgrown the BAO format. I don't know. I, for one, still enjoy the balance and simplicity of its design. Honestly, I don't feel that it need any major changes, but if enough people do and voice their opinions, I am pretty sure the TO's would listen.
I agree that missions at the tournament level have room for improvement. An interesting idea would be looking at the mission formats from the tournament that Seam Nayden won.
It had the ability to give the player a great deal of control over whether he utilized progressive or end-game scoring, as well as what most (IIRC) of the primaries/secondaries were. I think it let you pick one from a set of five or something.
I'm not sure that that level of complete control is good, but there's something to be said for setting win conditions after you have seen your opponents list within a certain framework. Sort of like surveying the field and developing a strategy based on that. For example, you're never going to go up against an elite army and say, "ok if we can kill enough squads, we'll take the victory men! Never mind that 5 of their squads amount to 80 percent of their army whereas it would be 30 percent of ours! Victory is ours if we can do this!"
I actually like that idea. Never tried out the 11th Company missions, but I think I'll give it a look-see. Sounds interesting.
I'm not a big fan of the 11th company missions. The problem is the same army will have an advantage in both the progressive and the end-game scoring in most of their missions. If you are going to have a choice of primary the options have to reward different armies or playstyles, not just 2 different ways to reward the same army.
Also, way, way too little emphasis on kill points. It made MSU too dominant, and was unfair to non-msu builds and armies. I'm not saying that MSU shouldn't be a viable way to play. I'm just saying that there should be other competitive builds as well.
The secondaries selection was better, but the options could have been improved as well, because most people gravitate to the same secondaries.
There was a really good idea (choosing the primary), it just needed a bit of a punch up in the execution. It was definitely and improvement from NOVA, and if they keep working at it, they will get there eventually.
2014/12/11 08:03:44
Subject: 1850 Competitive - Jy2's Pentyrant Tyranids vs Eldar w/Tyrannic War Veterans (Completed)
Modify it as you see fit. The key challenge is that everything is either in a AV 12/12/10 transport with a 3+ jink or Toughness 8. So there are no soft targets like jet bikes or Warp Spiders. Also, everything is twin linked.
Play it BAO. I don't think it favors you as much as you think. You've got only 2 OS units in your list, and no reasonable way to kill all of the toughness 8, and so it seems like in BAO, you best hope is to get first blood, and then contest objectives on turn 5, praying with all of your might that it doesn't go on until turn 6.
Yeah, I know, mechdar is an anti-meta list, just as my pentyrant build is an anti-meta list as well. For them, its AV12 with 3+ cover or T8. For tyranids, everything is either flying or they are cheap, expendable units.
Normally, in such a matchup, I just ignore the WK's and focus on killing everything else. It's similar in concept to ignoring deathstar units and going after the rest of the army. The difference is that, at the end of the game, after we've all killed each other's support units, the Eldar player will have 2 (or 3) knights that can take 2 or 3 objectives, whereas my Tyranid list will have 4-5 flyrants which can take/contest 4-5 objectives.
BTW, just fyi, but 5 flyrants vs a wraithknight:
60 shots, 53 hits, 9 wounds, 3 unsaved wounds a turn. While it is inefficient, 5 flyrants can kill 1 knight in 2 turns, and that doesn't include the use of psychic powers like Warp Blast or Psychic Scream.
PS - BTW, I myself run mechdar with 2 WK's. I am well aware of their strengths and their weaknesses.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/12/11 08:15:28
jy2 wrote: Then you go into the realm where winning isn't determined by the player but rather, by the objectives he draws.
1. Hold your objective (Easily achieved under virtually any circumstances)
2. Hold their objective (Very unlikely to be achieved)
3. Kill a unit (Easily achieved, unless against Deathstars)
4. Kill a unit (Easily achieved, unless against Deathstars)
5. 1 unit in their deployment zone (Easily achieved)
6. 3 of your units in your deployment zone/none of theirs (Highly dependent on matchup/other Maelstrom rolls)
Every game basically came down to who rolled the least 2's (or 1's, depending on which player was which) and 6's. Meanwhile, the huge preponderance of "kill a unit" was an enormous boon to deathstar armies, which is one of the things a Maelstrom format is supposed to mitigate--again, my personal opinion is that the missions completely missed the boat on what Maelstrom is supposed to accomplish competitively, and instead just became LOL RANDOM MISSIONS with no real strategic bearing on the outcome.
I think the BAO Maelstrom was designed by saying "How do we incooperate Maelstrom in a way that doesn't force gunline armies to change much?" Just like 11th Company built missions favoring MSU, and Sean's MSU Tyranid build won, BAO has built missions favoring gunline, and BigPig is out there with a very successful tyranid gunline that he calls the "Trapdoor spider".
Personally, I don't favor gunline because it discourages army engagement, and thus makes the game less fun. So, if I were to redesign BAO, I would make 4 changes.
1) Make Maelstrom Primary, and Eternal War Secondary.
2) Roll for and score objectives on the player turn not game turn.
3) Change the objective placement rules so that objectives are placed in No-Man's-Land (And most objectives have 2 copies)
4) Create a 11th companyesk list of tertiary objectives that players can pick from. (First Blood, Line Breaker, Moment of Carnage, Warlord, Last Laugh)
My modified BAO would favor armies able to compete in all phases of the game. A more run-and-gun style with much more army engagement, because those are the games I find more fun. That doesn't make me right, though.
2014/12/11 08:31:04
Subject: 1850 Competitive - Jy2's Pentyrant Tyranids vs Eldar w/Tyrannic War Veterans (Completed)
First of all, thanks for your BatReps.
It's a great pleassure to follow those.
I cannot find much BatReps against Astra Militarum.
Is this because that no people play AM locally where you play, or don't you (and others locally) think that AM is that competative?
2014/12/11 08:34:17
Subject: 1850 Competitive - Jy2's Pentyrant Tyranids vs Eldar w/Tyrannic War Veterans (Completed)
z3bb3 wrote: First of all, thanks for your BatReps.
It's a great pleassure to follow those.
I cannot find much BatReps against Astra Militarum.
Is this because that no people play AM locally where you play, or don't you (and others locally) think that AM is that competative?
Seconded, great batreps. Always a pleasure to read. Would like to ask the same question in regards to Orks
2014/12/11 08:36:10
Subject: 1850 Competitive - Jy2's Pentyrant Tyranids vs Eldar w/Tyrannic War Veterans (Completed)
jy2 wrote: Normally, in such a matchup, I just ignore the WK's and focus on killing everything else. It's similar in concept to ignoring deathstar units and going after the rest of the army. The difference is that, at the end of the game, after we've all killed each other's support units, the Eldar player will have 2 (or 3) knights that can take 2 or 3 objectives, whereas my Tyranid list will have 4-5 flyrants which can take/contest 4-5 objectives.
That wins you missions 4-6, and only if the game ends on 5. If it goes on to 6, the Wraith Knights can kill your landed flyrants.
jy2 wrote: BTW, just fyi, but 5 flyrants vs a wraithknight:
60 shots, 53 hits, 9 wounds, 3 unsaved wounds a turn. While it is inefficient, 5 flyrants can kill 1 knight in 2 turns, and that doesn't include the use of psychic powers like Warp Blast or Psychic Scream.
Yep, I've gunned down Wraith Knights with Flyrants + Dakkafexes, but as you say, it isn't efficient, plus you've got other fish to fry in the form of serpents.
jy2 wrote: PS - BTW, I myself run mechdar with 2 WK's. I am well aware of their strengths and their weaknesses.
I have no doubt that you know more about Eldar than me, and likely more than my buddy who runs the list I posted.
2014/12/11 08:46:21
Subject: 1850 Competitive - Jy2's Pentyrant Tyranids vs Eldar w/Tyrannic War Veterans (Completed)
z3bb3 wrote: First of all, thanks for your BatReps.
It's a great pleassure to follow those.
I cannot find much BatReps against Astra Militarum.
Is this because that no people play AM locally where you play, or don't you (and others locally) think that AM is that competative?
Seconded, great batreps. Always a pleasure to read. Would like to ask the same question in regards to Orks
Thanks, guys.
Unfortunately, and I don't know why, but there is a shortage of AM and Ork players in our area. There are even fewer competitive Ork/AM players in my locale. Probably the best ork/AM player in my vicinity is Reece the man himself, but he is always so busy that he doesn't really play all that much anymore.
jy2 wrote: BTW, just fyi, but 5 flyrants vs a wraithknight:
60 shots, 53 hits, 9 wounds, 3 unsaved wounds a turn. While it is inefficient, 5 flyrants can kill 1 knight in 2 turns, and that doesn't include the use of psychic powers like Warp Blast or Psychic Scream.
Yep, I've gunned down Wraith Knights with Flyrants + Dakkafexes, but as you say, it isn't efficient, plus you've got other fish to fry in the form of serpents.
Yeah, that should be a last-resort tactic, as the WK's are no threat to flyrants in the air. Kill everything else before you turn on the knights.
Unfortunately, and I don't know why, but there is a shortage of AM and Ork players in our area. There are even fewer competitive Ork/AM players in my locale. Probably the best ork/AM player in my vicinity is Reece the man himself, but he is always so busy that he doesn't really play all that much anymore.
Thank you for your reply.
2014/12/11 09:38:43
Subject: 1850 Competitive - Jy2's Pentyrant Tyranids vs Eldar w/Tyrannic War Veterans (Completed)
Dozer Blades wrote: The list can be beat but you've got to know what you're doing and there has to be a fair amount of LoS blocking terrain. Forget about the psychic phase versus five Flyrants. I think Necrons could give it a run for the money.
How does LoS blocking terrain help against Flyrants? They have an 18" gun and a flamer and they're a FMC. If anything it helps them so you can hide them more on turn 1 when they're on the ground.
I think Jim nailed it in the first post. List tailoring Tau and av13 tesla spam Necrons are the only things they wouldn't stand a good chance.
2014/12/11 12:40:16
Subject: 1850 Competitive - Jy2's Pentyrant Tyranids vs Eldar w/Tyrannic War Veterans (Completed)
I'd like to see this list perform in an ETC format mission where you have 1 book eternal war mission + 1 book maelstrom mission + KP differential. It's a little more balanced because you add up the total VPs scored by each player in every mission and then do a comparison, so an army like Pentyrant can't let his opponent run away with Maelstorm because he won't necessarily be able to make up the ground with primary points unlike BAO's fixed values.
2014/12/11 14:24:01
Subject: Re:1850 Competitive - Jy2's Pentyrant Tyranids vs Eldar w/Tyrannic War Veterans (Completed)
jy2 wrote: One thing I like about the BAO modified Maelstrom missions is that they are more generic and thus, more fair.
While they are more generic, it does not follow that they are more fair. What does follow is this: It is easier to ignore them, both in list-building and in play. Build a list that denies First Blood, makes Slay the Warlord difficult (Chapter Master on a Bike with the Shield Eternal and Artificer Armor, for example), and focus entirely on the Primary (or on tabling your opponents). Profit.
AdeptiCon Maelstrom (current iteration can be found at: http://adepticon.org/wpfiles/2015/201540Ktocards.pdf), and the missions being designed around their implementation, shift the focus of list-building away from preparing for the known to preparing for the unknown. If you refuse to build a list that is tactically flexible, you will likely conclude that you lost because you didn't get the 'right' cards. If you build a tactically flexible list, you will having scoring opportunities, and decisions to make, on every turn. This introduces a dynamic tension to the game from Turn 1.
When playing Eternal War missions (with or without a quasi-maelstrom Secondary), a player only needs to consider the mission on turns 4 and 5 (assuming enough mobility to get units to where they are needed, otherwise they have to start planning earlier). The first three turns are dedicated almost solely to attempting to remove opposing units with high threat levels and/or preserving your own units from Deathstars. When playing AdeptiCon Maelstrom (which I have, both in tournament and casual play), a player has to BOTH attempt to remove opposing units/preserve their own AND decide how to achieve tactical objectives while exposing their own units to the least amount of risk. Example: In a tournament game, I drew a card that would reward 2 points. However, in order to get it, I had to sacrifice shooting a Wave Serpent and instead send it flat-out to secure that objective. I did, earned the two points, and lost the serpent (over-extended and without nearby support). However, because I was willing to risk (and aren't tournament players risk-averse?) losing a valuable asset in exchange for achieving a tactical objective, I won that game...by 2 points.
2014/12/11 16:31:25
Subject: Re:1850 Competitive - Jy2's Pentyrant Tyranids vs Eldar w/Tyrannic War Veterans (Completed)
PanzerLeader wrote: I'd like to see this list perform in an ETC format mission where you have 1 book eternal war mission + 1 book maelstrom mission + KP differential. It's a little more balanced because you add up the total VPs scored by each player in every mission and then do a comparison, so an army like Pentyrant can't let his opponent run away with Maelstorm because he won't necessarily be able to make up the ground with primary points unlike BAO's fixed values.
I like that concept. Is each mission its own separate category or do you combine the VP's from all 3 missions? For example, the ATC ran all 3 missions simultaneously but each mission was separate (and each mission was worth 8-pts). So if you win in KP's, you get 8-pts. The other method I am talking about is to just total up all the VP's accumulated, so if you get 10-KP's, 3 objectives (worth 3VP's each) and 7 Maelstrom VP's, it would total out to 26 VP's.
In terms of its performance, I have no doubt that it can dominate in such a format just as it could dominate in the BAO format. It is a solid enough TAC to be able to do well in ANY format.
jy2 wrote: One thing I like about the BAO modified Maelstrom missions is that they are more generic and thus, more fair.
While they are more generic, it does not follow that they are more fair. What does follow is this: It is easier to ignore them, both in list-building and in play. Build a list that denies First Blood, makes Slay the Warlord difficult (Chapter Master on a Bike with the Shield Eternal and Artificer Armor, for example), and focus entirely on the Primary (or on tabling your opponents). Profit.
AdeptiCon Maelstrom (current iteration can be found at: http://adepticon.org/wpfiles/2015/201540Ktocards.pdf), and the missions being designed around their implementation, shift the focus of list-building away from preparing for the known to preparing for the unknown. If you refuse to build a list that is tactically flexible, you will likely conclude that you lost because you didn't get the 'right' cards. If you build a tactically flexible list, you will having scoring opportunities, and decisions to make, on every turn. This introduces a dynamic tension to the game from Turn 1.
When playing Eternal War missions (with or without a quasi-maelstrom Secondary), a player only needs to consider the mission on turns 4 and 5 (assuming enough mobility to get units to where they are needed, otherwise they have to start planning earlier). The first three turns are dedicated almost solely to attempting to remove opposing units with high threat levels and/or preserving your own units from Deathstars. When playing AdeptiCon Maelstrom (which I have, both in tournament and casual play), a player has to BOTH attempt to remove opposing units/preserve their own AND decide how to achieve tactical objectives while exposing their own units to the least amount of risk. Example: In a tournament game, I drew a card that would reward 2 points. However, in order to get it, I had to sacrifice shooting a Wave Serpent and instead send it flat-out to secure that objective. I did, earned the two points, and lost the serpent (over-extended and without nearby support). However, because I was willing to risk (and aren't tournament players risk-averse?) losing a valuable asset in exchange for achieving a tactical objective, I won that game...by 2 points.
A beatstick, uber HQ (especially one you can hide in a unit) is hard to achieve Warlord from no matter the format. With a more generic Maelstrom format (i.e. kill a unit), you can just ignore him and try to kill another unit instead. However, in a more specific Maelstrom format (i.e. kill the enemy Warlord or kill a character in a challenge), then it becomes much harder and more unfair, especially to armies with no cc-capability at all. See the difference there? More generic missions = easier to achieve by everyone. More specific missions = harder to achieve for some armies and against some builds. Thus, the more general the missions are, the fairer they are as well.
BTW, I don't follow why you think it is easier to ignore more generic Maelstrom objectives. They are easier to achieve than more specific ones. Why would you want to ignore them?
You may like the format of Adepticon, but that doesn't necessarily make it better. It just makes it....different. However, both formats do require tactical flexibility. Adepticon may require that flexibility because you don't know what your objective is. BAO requires flexibility because with each round, the mission changes and so does your opponent. Moreover, just the presence of Maelstrom-type missions means that it is always better to build a more tactically flexible list than just a brute-force, 1-dimensional list.
I think the BAO Maelstrom was designed by saying "How do we incooperate Maelstrom in a way that doesn't force gunline armies to change much?" Just like 11th Company built missions favoring MSU, and Sean's MSU Tyranid build won, BAO has built missions favoring gunline, and BigPig is out there with a very successful tyranid gunline that he calls the "Trapdoor spider".
Personally, I don't favor gunline because it discourages army engagement, and thus makes the game less fun. So, if I were to redesign BAO, I would make 4 changes.
1) Make Maelstrom Primary, and Eternal War Secondary.
2) Roll for and score objectives on the player turn not game turn.
3) Change the objective placement rules so that objectives are placed in No-Man's-Land (And most objectives have 2 copies)
4) Create a 11th companyesk list of tertiary objectives that players can pick from. (First Blood, Line Breaker, Moment of Carnage, Warlord, Last Laugh)
My modified BAO would favor armies able to compete in all phases of the game. A more run-and-gun style with much more army engagement, because those are the games I find more fun. That doesn't make me right, though.
You couldn't be more wrong to think that the BAO format favors the gunline. You NEED mobility to play the BAO format. None of the top armies were gunlines and none of the pure gunlines armies did well. Even the Tau army that came out 4th was a mobile one, with riptides and firewarriors in devilfish.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/12/11 16:37:54
Dozer Blades wrote: I played a couple games this week while up north with my BikeStar versus this build - won both games. Not easy but not super hard either.
I would be interested to hear more about it. You should do a batrep or a summary of the game, either here or in your own thread. I'm sure people would be interested to hear how you dealt with such a list.
@jy2: It's cumulative for all three. So you score your eternal war and maelstorm missions as normal and then you do the KP difference up to a maximum of 8, I.e. If you scored 11 KP and I scored 5 KP, you'd get a bonus 6 VP. Once each player has their total score, you compare them to see how many total BPs you score. It's very balanced and the open values for scoring make it much harder for massacres between equally skilled opponents.
2014/12/11 21:53:05
Subject: 1850 Competitive - Jy2's Pentyrant Tyranids vs Eldar w/Tyrannic War Veterans (Completed)
Great report as always, buddy. Gah, that list is dirty!
@tag83
No, we did not design the missions with gunline armies in mind. If anything, they are bad for gunlines as they force you to move to get points.
The "Trapdoor Spider" list that BigPig and iNcontoL play are not Gunlines (perhaps we define them differently). They are actually really mobile armies that move all over the table. A Gunline tends to be very static. Also, neither of those players has won a GT in our format, although they have both done very well.
Long and short of it, we did not design the missions to favor static armies at all, although your perspective on it may alter your experience.
@DJ3
Don't forget, each Maelstrom Mission table in the BAO format is different. They are not all the same.
The reason we built them that way is so that they complimented the primary missions, but didn't overlap with them. Some of the missions are actually really hard to write a maelstrom mission table for that is fair for all armies (don't include unattainable missions), and even for both players with the given deployment.
It's actually really difficult to come up with a variety of maelstrom missions that fit all the parameters. However, we have overwhelmingly positive feedback on the missions after our events, so I know we are on the right track.
As for having maelstroms as primary to mix it up, that is something we have considered. But, we have not implemented it yet as maelstrom missions were not very popular for tournament play when they first came out. Players have warmed up to them now, so they are more open minded to having them as the primary win condition if they are fair (IE, not the versions in the book).
No, we did not design the missions with gunline armies in mind. If anything, they are bad for gunlines as they force you to move to get points.
The "Trapdoor Spider" list that BigPig and iNcontoL play are not Gunlines (perhaps we define them differently). They are actually really mobile armies that move all over the table. A Gunline tends to be very static. Also, neither of those players has won a GT in our format, although they have both done very well.
Long and short of it, we did not design the missions to favor static armies at all, although your perspective on it may alter your experience.
I shouldn't have used the term gunline, as I've sparked a semantic argument. I am hesitant to put a name to it lest we get mired into another debate on what does or doesn't qualify. Suffice to say the changes I would make (Maelstrom primary, Objectives placed in no-mans-land, scoring on player turn instead of game turn, Pick 3 of 6 tertiary goals), would draw armies to have a more significant mid-board presence, and not be so stand-offish, and engage more fully like they do in Maelstrom based missions. So a fleet of nothing but Tyrants might be a less balanced list than an army with a greater diversity of units.
2014/12/12 17:00:03
Subject: 1850 Competitive - Jy2's Pentyrant Tyranids vs Eldar w/Tyrannic War Veterans (Completed)
No, we did not design the missions with gunline armies in mind. If anything, they are bad for gunlines as they force you to move to get points.
The "Trapdoor Spider" list that BigPig and iNcontoL play are not Gunlines (perhaps we define them differently). They are actually really mobile armies that move all over the table. A Gunline tends to be very static. Also, neither of those players has won a GT in our format, although they have both done very well.
Long and short of it, we did not design the missions to favor static armies at all, although your perspective on it may alter your experience.
I shouldn't have used the term gunline, as I've sparked a semantic argument. I am hesitant to put a name to it lest we get mired into another debate on what does or doesn't qualify. Suffice to say the changes I would make (Maelstrom primary, Objectives placed in no-mans-land, scoring on player turn instead of game turn, Pick 3 of 6 tertiary goals), would draw armies to have a more significant mid-board presence, and not be so stand-offish, and engage more fully like they do in Maelstrom based missions. So a fleet of nothing but Tyrants might be a less balanced list than an army with a greater diversity of units.
I like these ideas a lot. I think it's about time all formats make alternate tertiaries. It's actually crazy to me that people still run just First Blood, LB and WL since they are SO hard for some lists to get, against deathstars you can expect to never get FB or WL and probably tie on linebreaker at best.... Just not acceptable IMHO.
Those subtle tweaks make these extreme list much less powerful. It's actually a very enlightening exercise just to see how missions can be used to bring a smidgeon of sanity back to army composition.
Mission design is hugely important, I agree. That is why we play-test ours to death.
It's funny, the number 1 complaint about the way we score our Maelstrom missions is scoring at the bottom of the turn and the stated reason is the perception that the player going second has the advantage when in reality, our data shows that the player going first wins 4% more of the time.
That said, an only 4% varience is pretty awesome. It means you have a roughly equal chance of victory with our missions going first or second.
Having Maelstrom as primary is not a bad idea, but, again in our format Primary is 4pts, secondary is 3pts. They are really close in value (intentionally) so swapping them in all likelihood won't dramatically change the lists we see. For example, the Flyrant list would probably still obliterate most folks regardless.
@Red Corsair
What would you suggest as changes? Coming up with fair options is actually quite a challenge. You point out the inequities of the book tertiary missions, and I agree with a lot of them, but try and write some that are universally fair. You can't. In a game where all the armies are intentionally different, a static win condition will impact them all differently and therefore be more or less fair depending on the army played. It's the price we pay for variety in the game.
Plus, we try to stay as close to the book as possible for a few reasons.
Folks don't have to think about it. Overly complex missions that alternate from the book confuse players. While they are trying to focus on playing the game, they forget new or wonky alternate objectives as they are used to FB, StW and LB. Those sort of fade into the background of the mind as you have done it so many times. Are they perfectly balanced? No, but they are second nature.
IMO, the best thing we could do to make the game more fair would be to drop the IGO/UGO format and implement alternate unit activation. It is inherently more fair. However, in a game as complex as 40k, with as many units as we use, that would be tough to do.
Great report as always, buddy. Gah, that list is dirty!
Yeah, it sure is.
It is to this edition what the seer council was to previous edition (before the changes to the Psychic phase with warp dice). A lot of people are going to hate it.
I wouldn't be surprised if it gets nerfed in the future, along with re-rollable 2+ and Invisibility.
I shouldn't have used the term gunline, as I've sparked a semantic argument. I am hesitant to put a name to it lest we get mired into another debate on what does or doesn't qualify. Suffice to say the changes I would make (Maelstrom primary, Objectives placed in no-mans-land, scoring on player turn instead of game turn, Pick 3 of 6 tertiary goals), would draw armies to have a more significant mid-board presence, and not be so stand-offish, and engage more fully like they do in Maelstrom based missions. So a fleet of nothing but Tyrants might be a less balanced list than an army with a greater diversity of units.
With regards to placing objectives in the center, that is a very unbalanced scenario. First of all, how will you play missions such as the Scouring (with 6 objectives) or Emperor's Will? Secondly, objectives in NML's will create a huge imbalance as it will greatly benefit the more aggressive armies (such as MTO armies). As if deathstars, daemon summoning armies, TWC space wolves or MTO tyranids need such an advantage. Board control armies will have an inherent advantage in such a case.
I know you want to discourage people playing a static gunline type of armies, but that is not the way to do it.
.....Bay Area Open GT 2013 - Best Tyranids 
.....LVO GT 2014 Team Tournament - Best Generals
