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

I was just reading through Eissel's post regarding the overall seriousness of 40k and was particularly drawn to his points regarding list optimization. He loosely compared it to MtG deck building and the tourney scene surrounding that particular hobby. Now, I just got back in to the hobby in January - and I've had a great time with it. I have a fully painted Necron army, and my Iyanden Eldar army has been a joy to paint. There's an excellent 40k scene where I live, and players have been friendly and welcoming - great guys. That being said, a lot of those dudes are tourney oriented - they want to win! - and why wouldn't they? It's a game they love and play often.

I myself am not so tourney/smash face oriented. I like a solid competitive game, but am not particularly interested in the most competitive version of said game. Some of us feel it falls apart a bit at that point or just don't enjoy that play style. Some love it! And that's completely fair. I think there's a middle ground to be found there, and I believe it centers upon two areas: lists and missions.

I think it's entirely possible, for those of us interested, to dial back the hyper-optimal end of the game as well as open up new play style via new mission types with basic list parameters. The two items are related but not dependent on one another. I do feel though, that if you go for both, it's likely to improve the game even more.

In regards to lists, I think a set of new FOC organizations could be really interesting. There could be three, determined by a d3 roll prior to the mission, or agreed upon by players (or set for an entire tourney!). What would they look like? There are some interesting possibilities there.

In regards to missions, I have a number of ideas regarding alternate secondaries, scattering objectives, and secret missions (an idea gleaned from risk!). I'm currently working on four new basic missions that incorporate these mechanics, yet still revolve around objectives. Hoping to begin to play test these with several of different player types.

Beyond that, I'd also like to ponder what a set of basic missions without objective points would look like - a set based upon zone control perhaps...

What are your thoughts on the alternate FOC subsets as well as mission types in regards to opening up the game? I think new standards that cater towards both gamer types are entirely possible.

One thing that might help you is picking up a copy of the Battle Missions book, it has 4 missions for each army, and you roll a d6 before the game to determine them like normal. Each one has some cool unique rules and really fit the flavour of the armies, encouraging more narrative and less of a competitive nature.

The other idea would be to get a group together and run a campaign, again focusing on narrative rather than optimisation.

I think zone control was the mainstay of older 40k editions. Most scoring units in any given table quarter = VP.

The only issue I have with alternative FoC is that you can't do pick-up games with it. But then again, feth pick-up games!

Theres been other projects around secret missions and such, but we can always use more. The last idea I saw (and helped with) was to use several decks of objective cards and draw a secondary and tertiary mission from them.

The problem with your proposal is that it doesn't fix the problem you have in mind. Changing the mission objectives/FOC/etc doesn't eliminate the concept of a best army, it just changes what the best army is. The competitive players will adapt and play the new best army, and the non-competitive players will still have the same problems. If you want to change player attitudes you need to work on that directly, not by changing the game rules a bit.

Also, having alternate FOCs or similar list-building rules is bad because it punishes people who can't afford to have a supply of alternate units available. Most people can put a complete 1500 point army on the table, but there are a lot of people who wouldn't be able to, say, drop all of their heavy support and take extra elites. And since the people who lack extra units are often "casual" players this rule actually hurts the people you're trying to help.

I disagree Peregrine. I feel that any limitations placed upon the current FOC, limit what optimal can be. I think it's quite obvious I can't eliminate the idea of optimal (beyond randomly rolling for what units you play with) - but if the current FOC is limited in any way - it will by default be less than optimal.

I don't think the players I play with need attitude changes either - I think some of them enjoy the game in a slightly different way than I - so I think a middle ground exists within the realm of missions and FOC. Perhaps you could offer some suggestions or constructive criticism as to how this might work? I seriously doubt it's impossible. Unless of course, you believe GW's basic missions are the creme de la creme and any attempt to use missions or FOC to open up game play are futile.

Here's a few approaches to possible FOC limits: Permitted to only take one of any particular unit. Permitted only to take two of any FOC slot.

I'm sure these can be torn at, but they could provide for interesting game play.

 Thokt wrote:
I feel that any limitations placed upon the current FOC, limit what optimal can be.

No they won't. They will just make a new list the optimal one.

- but if the current FOC is limited in any way - it will by default be less than optimal.

You can't compare a FOC-limited list to a normal-FOC list, you have to compare FOC-limited to FOC-limited. And if you do that you'll find that you just change what the optimal list is within the FOC-limited environment. People who bring the optimal list within those restrictions will continue to beat people who don't just as effectively.

Perhaps you could offer some suggestions or constructive criticism as to how this might work?

I just told you: work on their attitudes and try to convince people to bring less-optimized lists.

Unless of course, you believe GW's basic missions are the creme de la creme and any attempt to use missions or FOC to open up game play are futile.

Of course they aren't perfect, but that's not the point. Adding new missions is a good thing to do, it just doesn't do anything to fix a problem with over-competitive players.

Peregrine, you are exhausting! I feel as if you're arguing for the sake of it, or just feel like shooting somebody down.

Let's call the current FOC - "Open". If I place limits upon it and you run an army with said limits against a list created from the "Open" FOC - you'd be running a less than optimal list wouldn't you?

Yes, I absolutely understand that in any competitive environment, players will optimize (optimizing the non-optimized FOC per se) - I don't think there's something necessarily wrong with that. You suggest talking to players beforehand about play less than optimized lists - what if I ...

Talk to them beforehand about playing with alternate FOC and missions? Kind of like I'm doing here, talking to other players? Discussing the matter.

If you have any actual suggestions, I'm all ears. Otherwise, go away.

 Thokt wrote:
Peregrine, you are exhausting! I feel as if you're arguing for the sake of it, or just feel like shooting somebody down.

No, I'm arguing what I'm arguing because you're wrong.

Let's call the current FOC - "Open". If I place limits upon it and you run an army with said limits against a list created from the "Open" FOC - you'd be running a less than optimal list wouldn't you?

But who cares? You aren't playing those lists against each other because everyone is going to be playing under the same restrictions. What matters is the balance between lists created under the new limits and other lists created under those limits. There will still be a best list (or tier of lists) within the limits, and it will still have a decisive advantage over poorly optimized lists created within those same limits.

Talk to them beforehand about playing with alternate FOC and missions?

Sure, talk to them about it. New missions are fun. But that has nothing to do with your problem, if you just propose new FOC rules and missions you're going to have the same people playing optimized competitive lists designed to win as effectively as possible in the new environment you've created.

If you have any actual suggestions, I'm all ears. Otherwise, go away.

I've already given you a suggestion. And if you don't want criticism of your ideas don't post on a discussion forum.

Oh god, here we go again.

 Thokt wrote:
I disagree Peregrine. I feel that any limitations placed upon the current FOC, limit what optimal can be. I think it's quite obvious I can't eliminate the idea of optimal (beyond randomly rolling for what units you play with) - but if the current FOC is limited in any way - it will by default be less than optimal.
.

the thing is, it doesnt affect all armies in the same way - thats what peregrine is trying to say. Its not a case of "a rising tide lifts all boats". Some will sink, to use this analogy. If you limit, say, the HS, or Elite sections of the FOC, or disallow multiple copies of the same choice, then armies like tau and eldar, who rely on slots-other-than-troops, get utterly hosed, whilst armies with strong core troops like marines get off fine. i applaud your intention, but all this will acheive is unfairly, (and most importantly) arbitrarily handicapping some players, and some armies simply because of the codex they took.

 Thokt wrote:

Here's a few approaches to possible FOC limits: Permitted to only take one of any particular unit. Permitted only to take two of any FOC slot.
.

And armies requiring multiples of units, or multiples of slots, again - like tau will suffer.

______________________________________________________________________________________


If you want to try different objectives, then try this: secondary mission objectives. I used to do them when i ran tournaments. aside from the regular mission, you have a secondary objective - like "seize the high ground" - obviously, seize the highest ground on the board. Other ideas were "decapitation" - kill all enemy HQ choices, "clear the skies" - kill all enemy flyers, or similar ideas to annihalate the enemy's troops, elites, fast attack or heavy support.
With regard to the FOC changes - and this will require a lot of thought on doing this right (see above), i feel your best bet would be for each faction to have its own FOC requirements- all armies operate differently, so it arguably makes sense for a tau army to be compositionally different to a dark eldar army in how it seeks to acheive certain mission types.

I tend to agree with Peregrine. New FOC will just change what the power list is and people will still play the spammy/optimized lists. To get a fluffy game really the best way is to talk to people, get them interestes, and design a fluffy game together that utilizes the less-than-great units more. A great fluff game will be more about exploring the universe and telling a story rather than just winning. Introducing things like custom rules, units (eg a giant ork cannon), and story elements make a game interesting and fun for both players if they are excited about the world of 40k.

I've realized that many times gamers who might be described as more competitive minded dont actually care that much about the universe of 40k, and really view the game as just a pretty chess game. Obviously this is a case by case thing and everyone is different.

You could also just handicap the other player by making him use an alternate FOC and you using the original, but that's pretty lame.

I'm not digging for an uber fluffly game, and I'm not trying to eliminate a player type. As I said in my OP, I'm looking for a middle ground centered upon lists and missions. I am now aware some folks believe it does not exist.

I reckon a combination of FOC and missions would be possible. There is definitely a problem with armies not scaling, but there are a couple of ways around that.

I think that pairing missions (eg playing relic and purge) with some FOC limitations might help. Note that the FOC limitations don't have to be the same for both armies...eg for a mission you could have an "attacker" and a "defender" and they have different FOC limitations. The "attacker" might have to have a min of 4 fast attack units, every troop in transports or something. The "Defender" has no fast attack (they were all drawn out) etc.

Another thing is to limit 'interweb" units - so for each army you can only have 1 of the units the interweb consider the best.

Try having fixed points for each FOC slot - this might create some imbalance, but you can then tweak the FOC points allocations to suit.

I saw a batrep (can't remember the title though) where they had 2 boards and you could teleport between boards. That was an awesome idea -VP conditions were different on the different boards and you could get benefits applied to the other board by holding objectives.

It is possible to dial back, but I think that everyone will tailor armies to win the missions....so keep changing up the missions!

Deadnight wrote:
the thing is, it doesnt affect all armies in the same way - thats what peregrine is trying to say. Its not a case of "a rising tide lifts all boats". Some will sink, to use this analogy. If you limit, say, the HS, or Elite sections of the FOC, or disallow multiple copies of the same choice, then armies like tau and eldar, who rely on slots-other-than-troops, get utterly hosed, whilst armies with strong core troops like marines get off fine. i applaud your intention, but all this will acheive is unfairly, (and most importantly) arbitrarily handicapping some players, and some armies simply because of the codex they took.

Exactly so. The WD SoB codex, for example, has very few options to begin with. One Troop. One of the best Troop choices in the game for the points, but still only one choice. And they have a large minimum number at quite a price, and either need be beefed up in numbers or given a transport to do anything. In, say, a low-points game that still requires HQ + 2 Troops the SoB can't do anything unexpected. A marine player (and many many others) can buy two much cheaper Troops and squeeze in some nice stuff from other slots. My SoB need FA and HS in any larger battle, and not just one slot. And their Elites are just about worthless compared to, say, Drop Pod Sternguards or Wolfguard.

The idea of doing some custom missions is certainly not wrong, but you'll have to discuss the exact limits with the guys you'll be playing and adjust it to the armies they're playing.

 Thokt wrote:
Peregrine, you are exhausting! I feel as if you're arguing for the sake of it, or just feel like shooting somebody down.

Let's call the current FOC - "Open". If I place limits upon it and you run an army with said limits against a list created from the "Open" FOC - you'd be running a less than optimal list wouldn't you?

Yes, I absolutely understand that in any competitive environment, players will optimize (optimizing the non-optimized FOC per se) - I don't think there's something necessarily wrong with that. You suggest talking to players beforehand about play less than optimized lists - what if I ...

Talk to them beforehand about playing with alternate FOC and missions? Kind of like I'm doing here, talking to other players? Discussing the matter.

If you have any actual suggestions, I'm all ears. Otherwise, go away.

He might be, but he has a point. In any given army, in any given FOC-slot, there's a range of units that are, demonstrably, "better" at their function in that slot (whether we're talking Elites, Heavy Support, Fast Attack, whatever) than the other units in the Codex and, in some cases, better than another armies options for that slot entirely. Some armies might only have 1 or 2 choices that can fill that slot, while another army might have 3 or 4 or 5 or 6... but in the end, all you're doing is playing a shell-game of where a given Army List's power is concentrated. The person playing the army with the most options, or an army with the "best" options, out of all the armies, in a given slot is going to be significantly advantaged over someone who either cannot fill those slots (lack of money for the models, whatever) or who chooses to fill those slots with "fluffy" but sub-optimal units., or who's Codex does not place a significant focus on filling that slot, so the only choices they have are "sub-optimal" units.

And, really, it depends on what FOC limits you were going to place. Limiting armies to no Fliers and no Elites? IG can still pie-plate you to death with Heavy Support.

Limiting the FOC equally to both armies seriously impacts some armies worse than others, simply because a given army can be designed/themed around certain aspects of their FOC.

 Thokt wrote:
I'm not digging for an uber fluffly game, and I'm not trying to eliminate a player type. As I said in my OP, I'm looking for a middle ground centered upon lists and missions. I am now aware some folks believe it does not exist.

There is a middle ground, but you keep stubbornly insisting on trying to reach it through a ridiculous method.

Changing the FOC and missions just changes what the best army is, competitive players will still play competitively with the (new) best army and still beat "casual" players just as easily.

Talking to people and saying "hey, we'd like to play some games with less-optimized lists so we can use some of those units we don't see very often, would you mind doing the same" accomplishes your goal.

I don't think that FOC or Mission change ups are a "ridiculous" method.

I don't deny that people will then try and find a list which is the "best". However, you can set it up so that there is no "best" list.

For example, Purge vs objectives vs relic. Purge you want less kill points and tougher units. Objectives (eg Scouring) - more troops (even smaller ones) are better. Relic, arguably, couple of strong troops with plenty of support to keep the opponent away.

By highlighting differences in the missions and making it a random selection, then perhaps throwing in a FOC limitation as well, you can "force" players away from hyper optimal lists.

Dakkamite wrote:I think zone control was the mainstay of older 40k editions. Most scoring units in any given table quarter = VP.

Actually, that's kind of interesting, now that you mention it. What if we had 4th ed's table quarters combined with 5/6th ed's idea of scoring units? That way you couldn't just sit in a castle and expect to win. It would certainly be a better counter to troopsless armies than our current, sometimes-a-few-hidden-objectives missions games (when you're not playing purge, relic, or will), and it would help reduce gunlining by MSU lists.

I was actually just thinking recently about how interesting it might be to have a mission type where the primary mission was basically linebreaker, or a version where you got VP from having the most units in your opponent's deployment zone (or, perhaps, relative. You'd sum up the relative number of scoring units in your deployment zone and your opponents, and then see who had the most points).

There was a module that I played some years ago wherein one of the missions was an objectives-based mission where both players placed two objectives in their deployment zone, and then you only got points for scoring on your opponents' objectives.

Anything that would penalize a player for sitting still and doing nothing more than play yahtzee in the shooting phase would be a good thing in my book.

As an additional thought, what about zone control with points for objectives held at the end of each player turn?

They have something like that in apocalypse don't they?

So something like this; after every player turn from turn X, both players gain victory points equal to the number of table quarters they "control". Control a quarter by having more scoring units in it than the opponent has scoring or denial units.

A scoring or denial unit that is in two quarters... (can count for either but not both? Counts for one at random? Counts for the one its most in?)

Not sure, cos I haven't played apoc. For sure, with table control, horde armies would get a big boost!

Ailaros, you basically tore a secret mission straight from the pages of the new missions Im tweaking. I thought it would be an excellent way to address the castle up Yahtzee as well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And Markcron, Im really intrigued by the per round scoring you mentioned!

I used that in a custom mission. Essentially, holding objectives enabled you to "weaken" or "strengthen" a gate into a fortress. So Attackers were trying to hold the objectives, defenders had to try and get attackers off them.

There were different types of objectives with different benefits (and contributions to victory points) - the mission was overly complicated in the end (there were two boards involved), but it was fun to play. Having to try and contest or dislodge each turn made it interesting.

We tried a different version, where you "captured" an objective and it was yours (and contributed points) until the opponent "took it". So you could capture it then move on to another one. In this case, really need fixed objectives around the board - we tried it with player placement of objectives and they ended up too clumped.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
oh, and with that last one we played purge secondary mission, plus all non vehicle units were scoring.

A simpler version of your idea could award 1 VP per turn per sector controlled (Im imagining six 2x2 sectors). Would require a fair way of determining control.

We play a lot of 3/4 player games (sometimes team) but sometimes each for themselves.

Thing about determining control of an area is it is really hard to do fairly. Control of an objective is more clear cut.

What happens with control of an area is that there is a big fight at the corners which intersect. So, for area control, I'd suggest that you need to have DMZ between the scoring areas.

idea for scoring an area:

a) No enemy units in area (entire base of at least one model must be inside area) = 5pts
b) Enemy units in area - engaged =3pts
c) Enemy units in area - unengaged = 1pt.

So both sides get to score points for areas. Maybe have a supplemental rule that a unit can only claim one area (player choice).

So, given that table quarters is a popular mission (or part of a mission) in major competitive events where people bring optimized lists and try as hard as possible to win the table quarters mission, how exactly is adding a table quarters objective making your group less competitive?

Just had a way out idea re the FOC. Won't work for some players due to lack of models but a generous "counts as" attitude would help.

Players get to choose 1 unit from each of the FOC slots. For each unit chosen, if they want an additional unit from that FOC, it is randomly selected from available units in that FOC section (excluding the unit originally selected). Players can then select the next additional unit from that FOC. repeat as necessary. Include HQs

If nothing else, should get some different units on the table!

I don't really see the point of that. Most of the fun of seeing rare units on the table is actually seeing them. If I ever get around to making a unit of DKoK rough riders they're going to look awesome on the table and I'm going to enjoy them. If I bring a unit of "rough riders" that's really just a bunch of empty bike bases because I had to take random fast attack to get my second Vendetta those "rough riders" aren't really adding anything to the game.

Didn't 3rd have slightly altered FOC options for different missions, and varying from Attacker and Defender?

I play no games that don't involve me planning beforehand, so it doesn't bother me if I have to plan differently for a game. Shouldn't be an issue for a tournament either.

I think Attackers and Defenders getting VPs for different things is reasonable and interesting too.

 Slaanesh-Devotee wrote:
I think Attackers and Defenders getting VPs for different things is reasonable and interesting too.

But then you remove a huge balancing factor, the need to be capable of doing both simultaneously to claim objectives all over the table. Consider a Tau gunline: it's very good at defending, but it has a major weakness in its limited ability to move up and claim objectives without getting all of its troops killed. And even with that limit it's a hard matchup for many armies. Now remove the need to attack by putting the Tau in an attack/defend mission as the defender. Now the Tau gunline can just camp behind its ADL all game and shoot, while the opponent is forced to move out and get shot to death. That's not really something you want to have if your goal is to make your group less competitive and add more fun for less-competitive players.