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.

LValx wrote:

 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.

Except you make it sound like they put sooo much terrain down shooty armies just aren't viable. Its too much.

 Peregrine wrote:

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.

I guess there may be a disconnect on when the actual game starts. For me a game starts at Turn 1 movement phase (or powers phase if you want to nitpick). All the other stuff, Warlord Traits, Objective placement, Terrain placement, is IMO pre-game. I dont think starting at a disadvantage "pre-game" is good.

If a coin flip is unnecessary, why not just remove it?

LValx wrote:
(keep in mind this is, I believe, the second biggest GT in the US)

And "people who travel to GTs" is a small minority of the overall 40k player base.

So pretty much all "comp" 40k is based off of a set of "house-rules."

Only if you restrict your definition of "competitive" to tournaments. If, instead, you use the correct definition (based on player attitudes towards the game) which includes two people playing a random single game that isn't the case anymore.

 Grey Templar wrote:

LValx wrote:

 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.

Except you make it sound like they put sooo much terrain down shooty armies just aren't viable. Its too much.

I never said shooty armies weren't viable. I said pure gunline isn't, which it really isn't whether you play NOVA or book missions, for reasons Peregrine himself pointed out. Playing an objective game with the mindset of "ill just shoot all my opponent's units dead" isn't a good strategy. Your list should always have the ability to be mobile, durable and IMO counter-assault.

LValx wrote:
I guess there may be a disconnect on when the actual game starts. For me a game starts at Turn 1 movement phase (or powers phase if you want to nitpick). All the other stuff, Warlord Traits, Objective placement, Terrain placement, is IMO pre-game. I dont think starting at a disadvantage "pre-game" is good.

And that's the wrong way of looking at it when you're making key decisions before turn 1 begins. List building is a huge part of the game, and then you make choices about terrain placement, how you deploy your army*, which HQ to pick as your warlord, etc. What you're talking about isn't 40k, it's an entirely different game where huge parts of 40k's strategy are removed entirely.

*Even if you want to eliminate all the other things you can't argue that deployment isn't part of the game when how you deploy your army is one of the most important choices you make.

If a coin flip is unnecessary, why not just remove it?

As I've said, the coin flip is good for the game. Including the potential to have asymmetrical objectives forces you to make interesting decisions and adds strategy to the game.

 Peregrine wrote:

LValx wrote:
(keep in mind this is, I believe, the second biggest GT in the US)

And "people who travel to GTs" is a small minority of the overall 40k player base.

So pretty much all "comp" 40k is based off of a set of "house-rules."

Only if you restrict your definition of "competitive" to tournaments. If, instead, you use the correct definition (based on player attitudes towards the game) which includes two people playing a random single game that isn't the case anymore.

I happen to think there is a competitive 40k scene, which is an entirely different discussion that i'm sure we will also disagree on.

Competitive 40k, for me, is based off of what is done at GT-level events. Just as I find the NFL the only truly competitive format for football, or UFC the only competitive format for MMA.

It's all subjective. So, "that's just like your opinion, maaaan."

Are we talking about competitive gaming in general or specifically tournament play? For competitive play in general the book missions are pretty good and do a good job of providing some variety.

Tournament play is different. The mission should be the same for everyone and so if repeated boring.

@makutsu
I would love to go into it but we would derail this thread. We also would have to go into more detail on lists and terrain both that available and what exactly was setup. As was mentioned previously this terrain would have to be 3 feet long and extremely tall to completely shield the objectives. Additionally GH with drop pods should be able to castle around one of the objectives using the drop pods as cover. Not to mention that the DP should have been able to approach the enemy without even being in LoS. This LoS blocking is exactly why gunlines are vulnerable and despite fielding a gunline from time to time I prefer it that way.

I like the variety. I mean an odd # of objectives really does make you rethink your tactics. As an example, 1 of the times I played a low point 4 objective mission. I took 1st blood and popped his razorback. The rest of the game was the two of camping on our objectives and a pillow fight between our leaders in a challenge. It was a boring game. It amounted to "I take lead, now I hold out for win.". And additional objective would have given the game a whole new dimension and it would have given my opponent an "easier" alternative to pick up the win. (cause he had no hope of winning with the way the game played out)

 Peregrine wrote:

LValx wrote:
I guess there may be a disconnect on when the actual game starts. For me a game starts at Turn 1 movement phase (or powers phase if you want to nitpick). All the other stuff, Warlord Traits, Objective placement, Terrain placement, is IMO pre-game. I dont think starting at a disadvantage "pre-game" is good.

And that's the wrong way of looking at it when you're making key decisions before turn 1 begins. List building is a huge part of the game, and then you make choices about terrain placement, how you deploy your army*, which HQ to pick as your warlord, etc. What you're talking about isn't 40k, it's an entirely different game where huge parts of 40k's strategy are removed entirely.

*Even if you want to eliminate all the other things you can't argue that deployment isn't part of the game when how you deploy your army is one of the most important choices you make.

If a coin flip is unnecessary, why not just remove it?

As I've said, the coin flip is good for the game. Including the potential to have asymmetrical objectives forces you to make interesting decisions and adds strategy to the game.

I think a coin flip that gives one player a distinct advantage is unnecessary.

If i'm not mistaken, you talk about MTG a lot, correct?

Well you wouldn't say a game of MTG begins at list building, would you? It begins when you've drawn you're hand

An NFL game doesn't begin at roster building, does it? It begins at kickoff.

I think a game of 40k begins when you've deployed and are going to start.

LValx wrote:
Competitive 40k, for me, is based off of what is done at GT-level events.

So your definition of competitive 40k includes only the people with the time and money to drive long distances to play in "official" competitive tournaments? No matter how hard two players are trying to win, no matter how seriously they think about their strategies, if they can't afford to go to NOVA they don't count? I think that's a pretty absurd definition.

Just as I find the NFL the only truly competitive format for football, or UFC the only competitive format for MMA.

This is only true because the time/money factor doesn't exist. If you can play football at the highest level of competition you are playing in the NFL. You don't have top-level football players stuck playing pickup games at the local park because they can't afford to drive to the NFL stadium.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LValx wrote:
Well you wouldn't say a game of MTG begins at list building, would you?

Of course I would. MTG begins when you finish building your deck, and how you build your deck is one of the most important choices you make in a game of MTG.

An NFL game doesn't begin at roster building, does it? It begins at kickoff.

No, it begins with the coin flip to determine who kicks off.

I think a game of 40k begins when you've deployed and are going to start.

So deployment isn't part of 40k, even though it involves some of the most important strategic choices you make? Does that mean that you're in favor of standardized deployment setups for each army so that all units are deployed in the fairest possible way?

I ought to have said a game of 40k starts at deployment, my bad, made a silly mistake there.

And yes, to me competitive 40k is limited to the GT level, everything else in my opinion isn't the same. A game between two players at a FLGS may be a competition, just like a pick-up game of football that is two-hand tag is a competition, but I wouldn't say it is a truly competitive game.

Either way, I think we've taken this conversation about as far as it is going to go, I doubt either of us are going to have our opinions swayed. I respect your opinion, but we will also have to respectfully disagree on the subject.

 Peregrine wrote:

 -Loki- wrote:
Telling someone to not be a dick with objective placement is not the same as altering the stats of a basic rifle to 10, and you know it.

And the point is that placing objectives to your advantage is not "being a dick", it's playing the mission exactly as it's meant to be played.

I completely agree.

You can't play a game of chess and complain that your opponent played white, so got an unfair advantage. How can you, - even as a tau player - (who I must admit I think have a notoriously difficult time getting objectives on the other side of the board) complain about someone playing the rules exactly how they're meant to be played?

Of all the things to get uptight about...

LValx wrote:
And yes, to me competitive 40k is limited to the GT level, everything else in my opinion isn't the same. A game between two players at a FLGS may be a competition, just like a pick-up game of football that is two-hand tag is a competition, but I wouldn't say it is a truly competitive game.

And what exactly is less competitive about it? If both players are taking the game (including list construction) seriously and trying as hard as they can to win (without cheating) then how is it NOT competitive?

(Don't say that it's because of the missions, because that's just circular logic.)

 Peregrine wrote:

LValx wrote:
And yes, to me competitive 40k is limited to the GT level, everything else in my opinion isn't the same. A game between two players at a FLGS may be a competition, just like a pick-up game of football that is two-hand tag is a competition, but I wouldn't say it is a truly competitive game.

And what exactly is less competitive about it? If both players are taking the game (including list construction) seriously and trying as hard as they can to win (without cheating) then how is it NOT competitive?

(Don't say that it's because of the missions, because that's just circular logic.)

Wouldn't cheating just make it more like a tournament?

 Makutsu wrote:
So flipping a coin and getting advantage is fair?

The point is that if both players have well designed lists, no particular advantage is gained. And even with more one-dimensional lists, being able to have an extra objective in your deployment zone isn't always a huge advantage for you and a disadvantage for your opponent. There have already been comments from other players in this thread that having objectives in their deployment zone is a pain, because it forces an army that relies on forward momentum to hang back. My Orks would be in that same boat... I have no units that can effectively camp on an objective... I need to be running across the paddock hitting things with pointy sticks.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Makutsu wrote:
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.

Terrain placement can cause some consternation if the collection is a little more eclectic. We have always got past that around here when using alternating placement by grouping the terrain into clumps of similar size. So you would place one large piece, or two smaller pieces, for example.

Come on, even chess lets one side move first... not the same, but fair. Whether that's an advantage or not, is how the players use it. I've never lost a game due to an objective being out of reach, but I have lost them due to not properly approaching the capture of said objective.

If you're making a list of things needed to balance 40k, odd objectives wouldn't even make my top 50... I'm as pleased getting it as I am not getting it... given any army I've played.

 insaniak wrote:

 Makutsu wrote:
So flipping a coin and getting advantage is fair?

The point is that if both players have well designed lists, no particular advantage is gained. And even with more one-dimensional lists, being able to have an extra objective in your deployment zone isn't always a huge advantage for you and a disadvantage for your opponent. There have already been comments from other players in this thread that having objectives in their deployment zone is a pain, because it forces an army that relies on forward momentum to hang back. My Orks would be in that same boat... I have no units that can effectively camp on an objective... I need to be running across the paddock hitting things with pointy sticks.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Makutsu wrote:
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.

Terrain placement can cause some consternation if the collection is a little more eclectic. We have always got past that around here when using alternating placement by grouping the terrain into clumps of similar size. So you would place one large piece, or two smaller pieces, for example.

In a case of fair terrain, I think 3 objectives isn't that big of a deal if you have a good list, but keep in mind things like Fortress of Redemption exists out there and those are technically allowed, so similarly sized pieces getting put down is not abnormal.
Following normal rules, you can almost guaranteed hiding 3 objectives behind that thing.
Any list though can then just camp out in the back and wait for you to come over and shoot you to bits if even such a piece exists.

This basically happened to me today and I was not impressed by this system at all.

Before that game I was completely pro odd objectives in other person's deployment zone, now...I don't know...
This terrain placement thing really screws armies over.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lobukia wrote:
Come on, even chess lets one side move first... not the same, but fair. Whether that's an advantage or not, is how the players use it. I've never lost a game due to an objective being out of reach, but I have lost them due to not properly approaching the capture of said objective.

If you're making a list of things needed to balance 40k, odd objectives wouldn't even make my top 50... I'm as pleased getting it as I am not getting it... given any army I've played.

Going first in Chess is equivalent to going first in 40k.

Getting an objective more would be essentially having an extra line behind your king line so that they can back up another line.
OR
As a better example, having an extra line that allows you to turn pawns into special pieces

 Makutsu wrote:
Following normal rules, you can almost guaranteed hiding 3 objectives behind that thing.

How...?

They have to be more than 12" apart. The FoR isn't 3 feet across.

 insaniak wrote:

 Makutsu wrote:
Following normal rules, you can almost guaranteed hiding 3 objectives behind that thing.

How...?

They have to be more than 12" apart. The FoR isn't 3 feet across.

Besides the horizontal deployment, you could essentially go 24" deep in deployment.
put them in a triangle shaped and you would be able to do that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
and it's 24" wide too, so 1 at one end, 1 in the middle and one at the other end, and if you put them in a slight triangle, you'd be able to get everything nicely tucked away.

Putting an objective a foot behind it isn't really 'hiding it behind'...

And again, against an assault-heavy army, would be as much of a help to the opponent as to the owning player.

 Grey Templar wrote:
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.

If this is meant to be a response to me, there's a quote button for a reason.

On the assumption that it is; did you read my post at all? Again; if someone thinks exploiting the system is stupid and unsportsmanlike, then telling them "you can exploit the system too" is not an argument that has any traction at all. Further, accusing anyone with a different opinion than your own of "whining" is childish and petty, although I suppose that's unsurprising given that your advice to someone playing against a d-bag is "be a bigger d-bag"

 Makutsu wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
and it's 24" wide too, so 1 at one end, 1 in the middle and one at the other end, and if you put them in a slight triangle, you'd be able to get everything nicely tucked away.

Yeah, math fail on my part.

Still, that results in two of the objectives being right out at the ends, so not out of sight unless you're directly the other side of it.

 insaniak wrote:

 Makutsu wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
and it's 24" wide too, so 1 at one end, 1 in the middle and one at the other end, and if you put them in a slight triangle, you'd be able to get everything nicely tucked away.

Yeah, math fail on my part.

Still, that results in two of the objectives being right out at the ends, so not out of sight unless you're directly the other side of it.

But there's still other terrain blocking LoS of course.

Yeah I've attached the scenario how the game that I had today's terrain was setup and it was kinda really bad.
Circles were the long fangs, and yellow is how they deployed.
Jagged Edges means that I could see through that wall.
White circles were the objectives.
The line on the right is an indication of 48" from the long fangs.

Basically we kept trying to contest for the one that was on the right, but they had a perfect slit to just shoot whatever comes to that opening, on top of that anything that came in got charged by bloodthirsters, and everything was still out of range of the Long Fangs.
Essentially half our army ended up doing nothing.
If it was relic for an instance we would have hands down won.

Like their list was really good for the terrain that they had, and having that odd objective encourages such lists to excel at really specific ones.
I'm not saying that it's not normal to have an advantage for particular lists vs missions, but for this game it was really basically whoever had the extra objective won.

 Makutsu wrote:
Essentially half our army ended up doing nothing.

Then that would seem to be the bigger problem, rather than objective placement.

If you're only making use of half of your army, you're playing at a massive disadvantage.

Personally, for me, the fun in a game is putting myself in my warlord's shoes. I like to think of a game of 40k as a real battle, with realistic expectations, just in a fantasy/ sci-fi setting.

For example, A real-life commander would be unlikely to know the exact composition of his enemy's forces. Sure, he'll have expectations (Ie, he might expect well trained troops, back with limited armour, or he might know his army has air superiority and enemy armour will be destroyed before contact), but he wont know exactly what the enemy will throw at him in an engagement.

Like-wise, in a RL scenario, the battlefield wont be set up "fair". Chances are, to achieve his objectives, a RL commander may have to order his troops to advance across an open field to attack a dug-in enemy position. That would result in heavy casualties, and would be a difficult mission to achieve, but unfortunately these are the way things go in war.

Half the fun, for me at least, is overcoming these challenges to still come out victorious. In 40k, your not simply trying to beat your opponent, you're trying to beat the mission as well.

 insaniak wrote:

 Makutsu wrote:
Essentially half our army ended up doing nothing.

Then that would seem to be the bigger problem, rather than objective placement.

If you're only making use of half of your army, you're playing at a massive disadvantage.

No as you see in the thing Long Fangs had no Vision of the guys for the entire game, what are we supposed to do charge long fangs into combat?

When your long range weapons are out of LOS and/or range, charging them into combat isn't the only option...

It appears to come down to when you think the game starts. To me, I believe that board control through terrain and objective placement is an important strategy, so I favor the camp of placing to your own advantage.

I did have this discussion with one of my group's members last night, and he had informed me that they were doing objective placement before rolling for deployment choices. I guess we will have to put that to a vote on our next game night with the rest of the group.

Alternatively, this discussion gave me a somewhat clever idea of tailoring a list to a wacky terrain board.
1. Set-up some very neat/characterful terrain (Maybe a third party)
2. Set-up some objectives (Third party again)
3. Have the players both take a look at the table, agree to terrain conventions
4. Players write custom lists for that table and with the pre-knowledge of what primary force they will face

After all, a good general would demonstrate some prescience of a battlefield's terrain features and send the appropriate troops to enhance their advantages.

orkybenji wrote:
I usually place objectives with my opponent before choosing table edges/ deployment zones. I find this more fun and fair.

This is how my bro and i play it and i believe it actually is in the rules as we been reading 6th edition senerios a lot and closely as we just finished our 2nd game. It just seems logical.

Also given that i still put objectives heavy on one side when we alternate as someone will get the advantage sure... could be me or my bro... but, can be a challenge... last battle i did i had the challenge... game went well except for dealing with his attack bike squads which riped me up midway thru game and caused him to win.. otherwise i was doing well in reguards to the objectives on his side.. also, if you have a lot of Close Combat troops having objectives on enemy front i dont believe hurts as much as you should be trying to maximize your troops effectiveness and they are camping your objectives .

It depends on what army I'm playing with. When I have a shooty army, I'll place the objective on my side of the board. However, if I have an assaulty army I'll place it on my opponents side of the board. That's where I want my assaulty units to be anyways, might as well give them something to fight for.