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.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Makutsu wrote:
The guys put a huge piece of terrain that blocked all LoS to them

This is your problem, not the objective system. A single piece of terrain that can block LOS for three different objectives (don't forget the limit of being at least 12" from all other objectives) is way too big. If you play with more sensible terrain you won't have this problem.

Well, you don't get to choose every piece of terrain if you follow the BRB rules.
Of course since he was placing objectives first so was he placing terrain.
There was one piece that could cover the entire Dark Eldar Army and 2 other smaller ones that worked out with the other terrain pieces and they deployed accordingly to have most of the stuff out of LoS.
I did place a lot of flat stuff already and my opponent could just choose the largest piece in the store and bam, no LoS for you.

Like what were we supposed to do? an insane 36" gunline army and insane CC army sitting in the back camping 3 objectives while being barricaded in, there's no way for us to deal with that properly.
Our lists could deal with anything and contest for any distanced objectives due to the grey hunter drop pods, but due to terrain placement and objective placement we lost just like that
It was soley due to the objective placement that we lost.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
And hey, two can play that game.

If someone screws you with terrain go ahead and screw him back. Eventually he'll stop doing that.


Don't complain if someones taking advantage of the system when you are just as capable of doing the same exact thing.

Well if he barricades in with 3 objectives then what am I supposed to do?
He just waits for you to contest and blast you off the objective.
Blocking all LoS is not good when you don't have the majority of the objectives.
Hence, why a combination of terrain placement and objectives can make the mission highly unfair already.

 Grey Templar wrote:
And hey, two can play that game.

If someone screws you with terrain go ahead and screw him back. Eventually he'll stop doing that.


Don't complain if someones taking advantage of the system when you are just as capable of doing the same exact thing.

If someone thinks the system is daft because it can be exploited, telling them they should stop complaining and exploit the system is a stupid argument.

Regardless, there's already a solution that solves both problems and stops anyone exploiting anything; place both terrain and objectives first, then dice off for table edge. Problem solved. Or, you know, everyone could just get into a TFG Arms Race, being more and more d***ish to each other until it develops into genuine animosity and you end up with one fewer opponent to play, that sounds like a great plan.

Try to barricade them first. Fill his deployment zone with impassable terrain. Place the objectives you get to put down somewhere he can't get to. etc...

Seriously, all the crap he's pulling, you can do it too so there's no reason to whine about it.

 Peregrine wrote:

LValx wrote:
Disagree pretty strongly. Random doesn't mean you will know what the mission is. You'll know it will be random, but you don't know what that randomness is actually going to manifest itself as. You may know the different probabilities of what could happen, but you dont have certainty.

And this is a good thing for competitive play. It forces you to bring a flexible list capable of handling a wide variety of situations (including ones where you face an uphill battle) instead of tailoring one specifically to the objective placement in a single perfectly symmetrical mission, and it rewards the skilled players who can adapt to that full range of situations instead of just autopiloting their way through a completely predictable game.

I disagree, it is a terrible thing for competitive play. Which is exactly why most TOs of bigger GTs are removing it. List has nothing to do with playing scouring and possibly ending up with all the low point objectives. You shouldnt be at a disadvantage before a game begins. Your advantages and disadvantages should come from tactical decisions, not pre-game rolls. Games with preset objectives dont result in predictable, autopiloting games. There is less randomness, which IMO is a good thing. A good game should have as equal of a playing field as possible so that player decisions determine the outcome. The book missions can put players on their backfoot before they even start playing and I think that is pretty bad for the game.

Apparently we agree to disagree, but I feel comfortable siding with the guys who spend a good bit of there spare time designing missions for the tournaments they organize. I'll also trust minds like Hulksmash and Mike Brandt who prefer that specific (NOVA) style primer, because it has more balance.

I think you are under a misapprehension that the game starts at turn 1 rather than when you rolled the first die.

The most strategic part of the actual games is terrain and objective placement just like napoleon's loss at waterloo. The right battlefield is everything. If you remove this aspect of the game 40k will become checkers with dice and you will loose a large number of people to boredom.

Post your situation in the tactics forum with as much information as possible and we can crowd source a strategy.

First of all, wh40k is not meant to be a war simulation, it is a fantasy in space game. Second of all for competitive play when discussing issues of competitiveness and fairness, what is done in the wider world of games and sports can be related to mechanics of the 40k game as context to what is considered odd, fair, competitive etc.

In this thread people have wrongly conflated preparing to play on an asymetrical battlefield with one player having a tactical advantage before the game starts by being able to place an extra objective in the most favorable possible place on the board. When an odd number of objectives is placed before the sides are chosen, this is obviously more fair than when one player gets to place the odd objective after sides have been chosen. If you cannot understand the logic in this I doubt there is any way to explain it.

In any game or sport taken seriously by people in general, there is invariably a lot of effort put into making the playing field neutral. Arranging the playing field to give one side an advantage is a very strange concept in Western civilization.

When one player receives any kind of advantage before the game starts it is called a handicap. The most common game where handicaps are calculated are in social bowling leagues because the teams have a huge amount of variation in age and skill among the members. So there is certainly precedent for giving someone an advantage at the start of the game.

The question is, do you want the meaning of your victory diluted by the fact that you have been given a handicap before the game starts?

 Makutsu wrote:
Well, you don't get to choose every piece of terrain if you follow the BRB rules.

The point is that a piece of terrain that big is not appropriate* for 40k and should not be in the terrain pool in the first place. If your opponents insist on using stupid terrain you should just place your invisible piece of lethal terrain that covers your opponent's entire deployment zone (don't forget that you can't deploy in lethal terrain), or place all of your objectives inside an upside-down bucket along with one of your scoring units. Your opponents will pretty quickly get the hint and bring more appropriate terrain.

*Outside of a special scenario game where the huge terrain is a key part of the scenario.

 ansacs wrote:
I think you are under a misapprehension that the game starts at turn 1 rather than when you rolled the first die.

The most strategic part of the actual games is terrain and objective placement just like napoleon's loss at waterloo. The right battlefield is everything. If you remove this aspect of the game 40k will become checkers with dice and you will loose a large number of people to boredom.

Post your situation in the tactics forum with as much information as possible and we can crowd source a strategy.

Objective placement wouldnt bother me as much if it wasnt set up the way it is, i.e. choose sides, then place objectives. The random amount of objectives would be much better if you didnt know what side you'd end up on.

And I think alternating terrain placement is bad. Whoever places first can, if there is one piece bigger than others, just use that piece and abuse it. I don't think having situations like that is good.

@Makumba & LValx

I know this is going to be taken as flame bait, and I really don't mean the following in any way but to better your understanding of 40k and tactical table top game in general:

You guys both have huge blind spots in your gaming intellect. Not that you aren't intelligent, competent, gamers, but veteran players that really do get this game are trying to explain fairly standard (basic) concepts to you and your tactic is to dig in and insist you know better.

Peregrine is dead on here, and insaniak is hardly someone to discount so casually.

Here is a step by step process of making a good 40k list

A) pick a codex/codices
B) understand the possible hurdles to victory:
b1) what is your local meta: ie, who will you face and what is their reasonable variety of codices and lists?
b2) what are the missions and how is your list able to handle them?
C) run a cost/benefit analysis.. what missions are you willing to be weaker at to be stronger at others? Given your local meta, maybe you can be weak in ones that you know others aren't strong in either, or you can go for the total mismatch, or try to be jack of all trades
D) build your list,
d1) trying to be flexible enough to viable in most missions
d2) knowing when you'll have to roll the dice and take some brazen risks to win
E) tweak your list with experience and as the game moves through editions and your local meta shifts

You guys are doing A & D

Your are ignoring, and flat out not grasping B, b1, b2, C, d1, d2, E. Sorry, but your just failing to get why your chosen lists are failing and then yelling the same ignorance at people trying to point out the gaps in your approach to the game. Your wanting to take lists that are all paper, but no rock or scissors, and then are getting frustrated that scissors keep beating you even though you're so good at beating rocks... and then telling us how paper should work, when you're not really even using that right.

 ansacs wrote:
I think you are under a misapprehension that the game starts at turn 1 rather than when you rolled the first die.

The most strategic part of the actual games is terrain and objective placement just like napoleon's loss at waterloo. The right battlefield is everything. If you remove this aspect of the game 40k will become checkers with dice and you will loose a large number of people to boredom.

Post your situation in the tactics forum with as much information as possible and we can crowd source a strategy.

Well, in real Warhammer they would have just ran Exterminatus on the planet.

Regardless, I know they are tactical, but how you deploy them should be what is giving you the tactical advatnage not the number of objectives you get.
And of course we placed ours in our deployment zone and bam that's 2 secured ones already.
Having that terrain advantage was even a bigger bonus, how am I supposed to get the objectives if I was bringing a TAC list?
I'd essentially have half the army up his face and half the army sitting back.
Of course their list isn't going to win 100% of the time since if we rolled relic we would have pretty much won against them.
But when missions severely benefits certain lists and armies, it feels like I might as well just roll off and see who wins.

Also, in real life you don't get to place terrain though, you can use terrain but not place it to your advantage.
If in real life I don't have terrain advantage then I'll change what I'm sending in, and again it's about using terrain not placing them there's huge difference.

LValx wrote:
Which is exactly why most TOs of bigger GTs are removing it.

I already pointed out that having a consistent objective/terrain layout for all tables at a tournament can be a good thing, but that's a factor that only applies in tournaments and has nothing to do with general game balance.

List has nothing to do with playing scouring and possibly ending up with all the low point objectives.

I agree that this mission is a problem, but that's because the gap between good luck and bad luck is potentially much larger than a single objective (and, to a lesser degree, because it's too easy to cheat). But that's a problem with the execution of the concept, not the concept itself.

Your advantages and disadvantages should come from tactical decisions, not pre-game rolls.

So how do you determine who goes first then? Or do you have both players take simultaneous turns so that you eliminate the advantage of having choice of turn order?

JWhex wrote:
When an odd number of objectives is placed before the sides are chosen, this is obviously more fair than when one player gets to place the odd objective after sides have been chosen.

This is not true at all. Both players have an equal chance of getting to place the odd objective therefore it is perfectly fair.

The question is, do you want the meaning of your victory diluted by the fact that you have been given a handicap before the game starts?

See previous comment that the game begins at list construction, not at turn 1.

 Lobukia wrote:
@Makumba & LValx

I know this is going to be taken as flame bait, and I really don't mean the following in any way but to desire to better your understanding of 40k and tactical table top game in general:

You guys both have huge blind spots in your gaming intellect. Not that you aren't intelligent, competent, gamers, but veteran players that really do get this game are trying to explain fairly standard (basic) concepts to you and your tactic is to dig in and insist you know better.

Peregrine is dead on here, and insaniak is hardly someone to discount so casually.

Here is a step by step process of making a good 40k list

A) pick a codex/codices
B) understand the possible hurdles to victory:
b1) what is your local meta: ie, who will you face and what is their reasonable variety of codices and lists?
b2) what are the missions and how is your list able to handle them?
C) run a cost/benefit analysis.. what missions are you willing to be weaker at to be stronger at others? Given your local meta, maybe you can be weak in ones that you know others aren't strong in either, or you can go for the total mismatch, or try to be jack of all trades
D) build your list,
d1) trying to be flexible enough to viable in most missions
d2) knowing when you'll have to roll the dice and take some brazen risks to win
E) tweak your list with experience and as the game moves through editions and your local meta shifts

You guys are doing A & D

Your are ignoring, and flat out not grasping B, b1, b2, C, d1, d2, E. Sorry, but your just failing to get why your chosen lists are failing and then yelling the same ignorance at people trying to point out the gaps in your approach to the game.

Go belittle someone else, you have no idea how condescending you are being.

So what credentials do you have that I should care what your opinion of my "gaming intellect" is? I know i'm pretty good at this game and i've got some results to back it up.

One player starting a game with more objectives in their Dzone is an advantage. Competition should have LEVEL PLAYING fields. One player having 3 objectives in their zone and one player having 2, is not equal. One player is at an obvious advantage starting turn 1, they have 3 objectives already. This goes for scouring as well. And IMO the Relic also.

If you don't agree, you don't agree. But don't sit there and condescend, you're hardly an authority on miniature wargaming.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

LValx wrote:
Which is exactly why most TOs of bigger GTs are removing it.

I already pointed out that having a consistent objective/terrain layout for all tables at a tournament can be a good thing, but that's a factor that only applies in tournaments and has nothing to do with general game balance.

List has nothing to do with playing scouring and possibly ending up with all the low point objectives.

I agree that this mission is a problem, but that's because the gap between good luck and bad luck is potentially much larger than a single objective (and, to a lesser degree, because it's too easy to cheat). But that's a problem with the execution of the concept, not the concept itself.

Your advantages and disadvantages should come from tactical decisions, not pre-game rolls.

So how do you determine who goes first then? Or do you have both players take simultaneous turns so that you eliminate the advantage of having choice of turn order?

JWhex wrote:
When an odd number of objectives is placed before the sides are chosen, this is obviously more fair than when one player gets to place the odd objective after sides have been chosen.

This is not true at all. Both players have an equal chance of getting to place the odd objective therefore it is perfectly fair.

The question is, do you want the meaning of your victory diluted by the fact that you have been given a handicap before the game starts?

See previous comment that the game begins at list construction, not at turn 1.

Well, I think terrain set-up goes a long way in mitigating the effects of who goes first or second. Good terrain lessens the advantage of alphastrike armies. Going second is a huge bonus in competitive play, but by going second you may lose out on FB. So there are ways to balance it. The problem is, you're right. Turn order is a big deal, but unfortunately you'd have to redesign the entire game, so it is a bit of necessary randomness.

I dont think the objectives need to be random, I think you can remove that element of chance while not impacting the gameplay and actually creating a more balanced, fair game for those involved.

To give an example of why asymmetrical objectives are a good thing for competitive play:

I play IG. This is an army that is great at holding a position (cheap blobs of 30+ models with 2+ cover and near-immunity to morale problems) and shooting (both with static and mobile units), but weak at moving up and taking objectives away from the enemy (low durability out in the open, especially for the only units with any real mobility). So, making a competitive list involves difficult decisions:

With the book missions I have to figure out how to deal with a situation where my opponent has an extra objective in their deployment zone. Do I go all-in with my shooting, depend on killing my opponent's scoring units, and risk a situation where I can't finish shooting them to death but have no hope of moving up to claim/contest? Do I bring more Vendetta squads, and potentially replace fragile PCS with carapace or camo veteran squads? Do I take allies and bring better objective takers at the expense of my primary strategy? And whatever the answer is how much do I want to invest in that plan?

With "fair" missions only I don't have to worry about any of that. I will always have an equal number of objectives in my own deployment zone, and any "odd" objectives will be in the middle of the table where it's easy for me to shoot anything that tries to claim them. I can just focus on sitting back with maximum firepower and never worry about trying to claim anything outside my own deployment zone.

Conclusion: the potential to have asymmetrical missions requires more complex planning and list design, so it is better for competitive play.

@ Lobukia. It's ironic about some of the claims you made about me, when you are the one making big claims without backing any of them up.

Who said I had shortcomings? All i've done is criticize the missions, you have no idea how poorly or well I may do in games playing them.. All you know is that I don't like them and then you jumped to conclusions.

I can play the book missions just fine and I can win playing them, on a competitive or casual level. That doesn't mean I think they are good, or balanced. I think tournaments, specifically, should strive to create better missions that will give both players the best chance to win. Neither player should have any board advantage. Obviously you cannot equalize everything because players build their own lists. But what is on the table (terrain) and the mission parameters should be fair for both players.

IMO, the way the book does it, pick sides, then place, is not fair and not optimal. I'd be much more open to it if you placed and then chose sides. I could see the tactical difficulty and balance in that sort of mission.

LValx wrote:
One player starting a game with more objectives in their Dzone is an advantage.

The game begins at list construction, so it is not possible for one player to start a game with more objectives in their deployment zone.

Competition should have LEVEL PLAYING fields.

40k does. The playing field is completely level, each player has exactly the same chance of getting to place the "extra" objective (if any).

 Peregrine wrote:
To give an example of why asymmetrical objectives are a good thing for competitive play:

I play IG. This is an army that is great at holding a position (cheap blobs of 30+ models with 2+ cover and near-immunity to morale problems) and shooting (both with static and mobile units), but weak at moving up and taking objectives away from the enemy (low durability out in the open, especially for the only units with any real mobility). So, making a competitive list involves difficult decisions:

With the book missions I have to figure out how to deal with a situation where my opponent has an extra objective in their deployment zone. Do I go all-in with my shooting, depend on killing my opponent's scoring units, and risk a situation where I can't finish shooting them to death but have no hope of moving up to claim/contest? Do I bring more Vendetta squads, and potentially replace fragile PCS with carapace or camo veteran squads? Do I take allies and bring better objective takers at the expense of my primary strategy? And whatever the answer is how much do I want to invest in that plan?

With "fair" missions only I don't have to worry about any of that. I will always have an equal number of objectives in my own deployment zone, and any "odd" objectives will be in the middle of the table where it's easy for me to shoot anything that tries to claim them. I can just focus on sitting back with maximum firepower and never worry about trying to claim anything outside my own deployment zone.

Conclusion: the potential to have asymmetrical missions requires more complex planning and list design, so it is better for competitive play.

The problem is, that isnt the case. The way NOVA sets things up, with adequate terrain, it discourages purely static shooting armies. So even if you wanted to sit in your dzone and attempt to just shoot the middle, it is unlikely to work. NOVA requires you to bring durable troops, mobile shooting and even incorporate assault elements. It becomes critical in that set-up to be able to capture/defend the middle of the field. So these are things to think about for all codices.

Mike Brandt did a really, really solid job of coming up with a mission primer and terrain set-up that balances things and discourages things like "leafblower" lists. Those simply don't work because you'll have blocked shooting lanes, etc that make it difficult to focus all your fire easily.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

LValx wrote:
One player starting a game with more objectives in their Dzone is an advantage.

The game begins at list construction, so it is not possible for one player to start a game with more objectives in their deployment zone.

Competition should have LEVEL PLAYING fields.

40k does. The playing field is completely level, each player has exactly the same chance of getting to place the "extra" objective (if any).

I'm done with this thread. We obviously disagree and won't come to see things the same way. If you find the book missions balanced, well great for you. But my mileage has varied and I don't find them to be well written.

So you admit that NOVA is deliberately trying to force players to only play a certain kind of list.

Well thats actually a bad thing. A static shooty army is a legitimate way to play, some people like that. Not me personally of course.

So NOVA tournaments are actually NOT balanced but actually tailored to a specific set of playstyles. One you happen to like.


Thats ok, but its not a level playing field. its slanted towards specific lists.

LValx wrote:
Mike Brandt did a really, really solid job of coming up with a mission primer and terrain set-up that balances things and discourages things like "leafblower" lists. Those simply don't work because you'll have blocked shooting lanes, etc that make it difficult to focus all your fire easily.

I didn't say leafblower. I'm talking about a blob IG squad that puts a hundred (or more) bodies on "home" objectives with 2+ cover saves and near-zero chance of failing a morale test and then shooting the middle clear (whether with static artillery or mobile shooting units). Since I no longer have to worry about having to move any significant presence beyond midfield I can safely focus on holding my "home" objectives and winning the middle. And I'm not the only one who thinks this way, IG blobs are really popular in tournament lists when you can guarantee that the most important part of the game will always be holding your own deployment zone.

Contrast this with the book missions where I have to plan for doing something my army hates: moving past midfield and claiming well-defended objectives in my opponent's deployment zone, with zero chance of winning if I fail to do so.

 Grey Templar wrote:
So you admit that NOVA is deliberately trying to force players to only play a certain kind of list.

Well thats actually a bad thing. A static shooty army is a legitimate way to play, some people like that. Not me personally of course.

So NOVA tournaments are actually NOT balanced but actually tailored to a specific set of playstyles. One you happen to like.


Thats ok, but its not a level playing field. its slanted towards specific lists.

He said discourages particular one sided rock paper scissors lists.
If you face an army like that and they have majority of objectives you might as well shake their hand and say thank you.

Too follow up on Peregrines idea of fairness, the following scenario would be fair.

Scenario: American Football Game

Two teams flip a coin pregame, heads means you are team A, Tails means you are team B

Playing Field: Team A defends a goal 50 yards from midfield. Team B defends a goal 40 yards from midfield.

Now according to Peregine this is a perfectly fair scenario because both teams had an equal chance (coin flip) to be either team A or B. Also according to him and others it is fair because the game starts with roster building and you should be prepared for this.

Actually that is fair, its an equal chance to defend either goal post.

Balance doesn't mean things are equal. it means things are even.

JWhex wrote:
Now according to Peregine this is a perfectly fair scenario because both teams had an equal chance (coin flip) to be either team A or B.

Exactly. "Fair" just means both sides have an equal chance of winning. It doesn't mean that it will be the most fun or enjoyable version of the game.

 Grey Templar wrote:
So you admit that NOVA is deliberately trying to force players to only play a certain kind of list.

Well thats actually a bad thing. A static shooty army is a legitimate way to play, some people like that. Not me personally of course.

So NOVA tournaments are actually NOT balanced but actually tailored to a specific set of playstyles. One you happen to like.


Thats ok, but its not a level playing field. its slanted towards specific lists.

Christ almighty. NOVA attempts to balance the game so that shooty armies aren't at a severe advantage. On a table with little terrain, shooting armies will generally do very well because the assault army has little chance to avoid shooting. Most assault units aren't dual purpose so on the way to assault they will likely just soak up damage. Having varied terrain with the inclusion of BLoS middle pieces allows for assault lists to take less damage, making it more viable.

Look at results from NOVA the last couple of years. Lots of variety in what folks player there. I think the variety speaks for itself. Any list can do well there.

I'd say a pure shooting force is poorly built for any mission primer because being too static is a bad thing, both in book missions and just about any tournament primer.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Makutsu wrote:
Well, you don't get to choose every piece of terrain if you follow the BRB rules.

The point is that a piece of terrain that big is not appropriate* for 40k and should not be in the terrain pool in the first place. If your opponents insist on using stupid terrain you should just place your invisible piece of lethal terrain that covers your opponent's entire deployment zone (don't forget that you can't deploy in lethal terrain), or place all of your objectives inside an upside-down bucket along with one of your scoring units. Your opponents will pretty quickly get the hint and bring more appropriate terrain.

*Outside of a special scenario game where the huge terrain is a key part of the scenario.

Say that to Fortress of Redemption


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

JWhex wrote:
Now according to Peregine this is a perfectly fair scenario because both teams had an equal chance (coin flip) to be either team A or B.

Exactly. "Fair" just means both sides have an equal chance of winning. It doesn't mean that it will be the most fun or enjoyable version of the game.

So flipping a coin and getting advantage is fair?

 Peregrine wrote:

LValx wrote:
Mike Brandt did a really, really solid job of coming up with a mission primer and terrain set-up that balances things and discourages things like "leafblower" lists. Those simply don't work because you'll have blocked shooting lanes, etc that make it difficult to focus all your fire easily.

I didn't say leafblower. I'm talking about a blob IG squad that puts a hundred (or more) bodies on "home" objectives with 2+ cover saves and near-zero chance of failing a morale test and then shooting the middle clear (whether with static artillery or mobile shooting units). Since I no longer have to worry about having to move any significant presence beyond midfield I can safely focus on holding my "home" objectives and winning the middle. And I'm not the only one who thinks this way, IG blobs are really popular in tournament lists when you can guarantee that the most important part of the game will always be holding your own deployment zone.

Contrast this with the book missions where I have to plan for doing something my army hates: moving past midfield and claiming well-defended objectives in my opponent's deployment zone, with zero chance of winning if I fail to do so.

Winning the middle is pretty tough, you'll most certainly be forced to move and can't simply just GTG for a 2+ all game. The middle pieces are usually designed so that you cant score without going "over the hill/building/whatever piece of terrain."

Play at NOVA, you might not be convinced of how awesome it is until you play it. I used to abide mostly by book missions or tournament scenarios my local stores used. But NOVA, in my experience, is the best way to play.

LValx wrote:
NOVA attempts to balance the game so that shooty armies aren't at a severe advantage.

Then you're agreeing with what Grey Templar said: rather than play 40k as GW designed it (which may happen to favor shooting over assault) NOVA adds house rules with the intent of changing the game balance to a point that the people running the event find more enjoyable. You can debate all you like whether or not the NOVA metagame is more enjoyable than the standard 40k metagame, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a deliberate alteration of the game to suit the TO's preferences.

 Makutsu wrote:
Say that to Fortress of Redemption

Putting the Fortress of Redemption in standard 40k games was an incredibly stupid idea, and a blatant attempt to increase sales of their special scenario terrain.

So flipping a coin and getting advantage is fair?

Assuming it is a fair coin, yes. Both players have an equal chance of getting the advantage, so it is fair.

 Peregrine wrote:

JWhex wrote:
Now according to Peregine this is a perfectly fair scenario because both teams had an equal chance (coin flip) to be either team A or B.

Exactly. "Fair" just means both sides have an equal chance of winning. It doesn't mean that it will be the most fun or enjoyable version of the game.

I'm not sure a fair chance for both players to end up with an unfair advantage makes for a fair game.

LValx wrote:
I'm not sure a fair chance for both players to end up with an unfair advantage makes for a fair game.

Because the game begins before the advantage is granted. When the game starts both players have an equal chance of winning. During the game events happen and players gain or lose advantages. It's no different than rolling to shoot at a unit and destroying it or not, the fact that once your key vehicle explodes you have a lower chance of winning doesn't mean that the game isn't fair.

And note that "fair" does NOT mean "enjoyable". A game of "flip a coin" is completely fair, but also a complete waste of time.

And yeah, NOVA is definitely a altered version of 40k. I think everyone who has played it or is familiar with the set-up would agree with that.

But it isnt solely based off one man, or one group's preferences. Brandt used player input (keep in mind this is, I believe, the second biggest GT in the US) to modify the layouts and primer.

So it has been formed with input from competitive players. I know many big players who post on this forum, Hulksmash for example, find it to be the best format available. I just happen to agree with that, whether or not it is modified.

I'm not one to be dogmatic in adhering to anything GW writes, since I don't believe they design the game with competition in mind.

And since we are on the topic, IF you want to consider NOVA as making house-rules, then you'll have to say that for every tournament. In 6th, I haven't been to a single event, big or small that didn't modify book missions at least a little. Even if it was as simple as including secondary/tertiary missions that ran simultaneously. So pretty much all "comp" 40k is based off of a set of "house-rules."

 Peregrine wrote:

LValx wrote:
NOVA attempts to balance the game so that shooty armies aren't at a severe advantage.

Then you're agreeing with what Grey Templar said: rather than play 40k as GW designed it (which may happen to favor shooting over assault) NOVA adds house rules with the intent of changing the game balance to a point that the people running the event find more enjoyable. You can debate all you like whether or not the NOVA metagame is more enjoyable than the standard 40k metagame, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a deliberate alteration of the game to suit the TO's preferences.

 Makutsu wrote:
Say that to Fortress of Redemption

Putting the Fortress of Redemption in standard 40k games was an incredibly stupid idea, and a blatant attempt to increase sales of their special scenario terrain.

So flipping a coin and getting advantage is fair?

Assuming it is a fair coin, yes. Both players have an equal chance of getting the advantage, so it is fair.

FoR is part of the game hence anything of the same size can be placed
And combined with objective placing, and GG.



The flipping coin part is fair, but giving your opponent a huge advantage isn't.
Getting that advantage means that you have 3 more points in your possession with nothing to counter balance that advantage.

On the other hand, rolling for who goes first gets balanced by who gets last turn since if I get first turn chances are I will get first blood
And if I go 2nd I can shoot someone off an objective/claim it.

There is nothing to prevent you from getting that extra 3 point bonus just by a roll.