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.

All, since the OP, the TOs have been hard at work crafting some test missions. Those will be updated here for your use.

Background

MVB posted an interesting article over on his blog: http://whiskey40k.blogspot.com/2013/12/better-mission-design-more-proactive.html

The gist is a proposal is to create a "Standard" mission and an "Alternate" mission that players can choose at the start of the game. Each mission type caters to different styles of armies, and applies only to the player who chooses it. I think it is a potentially elegant way to help even the playing field by giving players a goal they can fight for without at the same time nerfing the other army.

UPDATE: The TOs developed a draft mission (reproduced below): http://whiskey40k.blogspot.com/2013/12/asymmetrical-mission-design-for-better.html

Asymmetrical Tournament Test Mission #1
Note: This mission is currently designed toward fixed objective location and symmetrical terrain. In the future and comprehensively we anticipate not every mission will look like this - the variety needs to allow TOs to tailor their selections from the Catalog to the specific parameters and constraints of their particular tournament environment.

For purposes of playtesting, we recommend you note down Standard/Alternate and Secondary Escalations prior to rolling any dice. Suggestions for alternate times to reveal and why are welcome! We recommend playing this particular mission in either Vanguard or Dawn of War deployments. On a separate piece of paper (for playtest), privately note whether you will be playing the Standard Primary or Alternate Primary; also note which Secondary you will be Escalating (see below for more information).
Immediately after rolling to determine deployment zones / place objective markers, both players must reveal their Primary and Secondary choices as noted above.

Primary - Whoever scores the most points from OBJECTIVES wins the Primary
Secondary- Whoever scores the most points from SECONDARIES wins the Secondary

OBJECTIVES
HOW YOU SCORE POINTS:
Standard Primary Objectives - Each Objective is worth 3 points if controlled at the end of the game
Alternate Primary Objectives - You score 1 point for each Objective you control at the start of YOUR OWN player turn 2, 3, 4, and 5. (i.e. No score on turns 1, 6, 7). Make this calculation BEFORE anything else (before reserves, psychic powers, etc.).

You may not score more than 9 points for either the Standard or Alternate version of this mission.

HOW YOU PLACE OBJECTIVES:
After rolling to determine deployment zones, place 6 objectives in the following fashion:
Place 1 objective in the center of each Table Quarter (12" from the nearest long table edge, 18" from the nearest short table edge)
Starting with the player who won the roll to select deployment zones, each player places one objective in a location of their choosing, no closer than 12" from any other Objective, and no closer than 6" from any table edge

Example: Player A selects to play Alternate Primary Objectives; he controls 3 Objectives at the start of his 2nd Player Turn (3 Points), 2 at the start of his 3rd Player Turn (2 Points), 1 at the start of his 4th Player Turn (1 Point) and none for the remainder of the game. Player B selects to play Standard Primary Objectives and controls 2 Objectives at the end of the game (6 Points). Both players score 6 Points toward the Primary, yielding a tie on Primary.

SECONDARIES
HOW YOU SCORE POINTS:
Each SECONDARY is worth 2 points; ESCALATED SECONDARIES are worth a maximum of 4 points. You must choose to convert one Secondary into its ESCALATED version.

You may score a maximum of 8 points for accomplishing SECONDARIES.

First Blood - 2 Points for being the first player to destroy an enemy unit
Slay the Warlord - 2 Points for destroying the enemy Warlord
Linebreaker - 2 Points for ending the game with a scoring/denial unit in the enemy deployment zone

HOW YOU ESCALATE SECONDARIES:
Each player secretly chooses one of the secondary objectives to escalate. They then score the escalated secondar INSTEAD of the basic secondary.

ESCALATED First Blood - Up to 4 Points for destroying more units than your opponent destroys; subtract the # of units your opponent destroyed from the # of units you destroyed; the sum is the # of points you earn for this Escalated Secondary (minimum of 0, maximum of 4); you no longer score any points for achieving Standard First Blood
ESCALATED Slay the Warlord - 1 Point for each enemy Character destroyed, to a maximum of 4 points; you no longer score any additional points for destroying the enemy’s Warlord.
ESCALATED Linebreaker - 1 Point for each non-Independent Character scoring or denial unit WHOLLY within the enemy's deployment zone at the end of the game, to a maximum of 4 points; you no longer score any additional points for standard Linebreaker.

EXAMPLE: Player A chooses to Escalate First Blood. During the course of the game, he completes Linebreaker (2 Points), Slay the Warlord (2 Points), First Blood (now worth 0 Points) and he destroys 4 more enemy units than his opponent destroys of his (4 Points). He has scored the maximum of 8 Points toward winning Secondary.

Feedback
We want your feedback! For playtest, please be as comprehensive as you can - please include things like images of the deployment zone and objective locations, obviously the armies involved and any other variables you can think of.

Submit your feedback here in the thread, over on Whiskey & 40k, to mvbrandt@gmail.com, or to your favorite TO.

It is an interesting set up. Worth looking into and playing around with imo.

That's not a bad idea. It would make drop pod-style armies playable again.

Also forces your opponent to shoot at troops on objectives earlier than they might otherwise- instead of allowing them to just wipe out your kill-y units and grab an objective last turn.

I'd be interested in playtesting this format a bit.

EDIT:

Just read the article and absolutely LOVE the concept. Posting it to our local group page now.

This is a really good idea. Might knock it around a bit with some mates.

This could be a step in the right direction.

I was recently looking through an old 3rd Ed rulebook and feeling wistful about the nearly 20 missions, alternate FOC setups and non-symmetrical objectives that were on display.

I long for a time when these are more common again.

I think this would be really neat, right now it is like kill kill kill, until about turn 3 or 4 then you have to figure out how many objectives you can grab up, with this it would be a battle to see who could hold the objectives the longest, with troops being sacrificing their firepower in order to hold the objective the longest.

We had progressive objectives like this in the AdeptiCon Gladiator for the last few years, except we used them as standard objectives. They are quite awesome, but require a bit a bookkeeping on the part of the players.

I think so long as you can build a mission that the power builds can't adjust to and still overpower everyone, then it is a great idea.

Grazie. This has a lot of work and player/TO contribution to go. I think there's a good core team of diverse personalities coming together for it, however, with an eye toward benefiting the community without attribution to just one tourney or designer.

Yeah, this isn't an ego driven solution (I hope not, anyway) as that will ultimately just turn people off and divide groups. If it is inclusive, more folks will feel a sense of ownership in it.

We're down to post video bat reps of ideas and gather feedback, too. I would love to see at least some of us all get on the same page (or close to the same page) so that we cna get some type of conformity.

 Reecius wrote:
Yeah, this isn't an ego driven solution (I hope not, anyway) as that will ultimately just turn people off and divide groups. If it is inclusive, more folks will feel a sense of ownership in it.

We're down to post video bat reps of ideas and gather feedback, too. I would love to see at least some of us all get on the same page (or close to the same page) so that we cna get some type of conformity.

I think the key is to get enough missions using similar design principles and with the commitment of a large and diverse group of TOs into a Catalog. At that point, any given event that wants to use them and the general allowances/restrictions applied to the Catalog as a whole (i.e., no comp/bans, yes to all codices/supplements/dataslates, or w/e is decided upon) can do so. Also, local RTTs and other things can build their rounds by selecting whichever missions from the Catalog they want (almost like a player-driven RTT packet like the ones of old).

The biggest key is there will be some TOs and players who don't want to participate simply for the sake of retaining pure individualism or out of dislike for people/formats who partake (i.e., there are always going to be people who simply "don't like" NOVA or AdeptiCon or Feast or any of the big name events or personalities). As long as there's a large enough mass of participation, you give those who can't afford to tweak to the differing bans and restrictions at every next event a series of attendable GTs where their army of at least the year works alright. And again, one of the hopes and drivers here is it's wrong fundamentally to say to someone "We don't think your army is fair, so you can't use it anymore" when they've invested their money into it.

For better or worse, GW's design philosophy has SPECIFICALLY done that to many players who own armies like Dark Angels, outdated armies, etc. They've released rules that tell those players "sorry, you can't use your models, buy these new ones that aren't at all appealing to you thematically or competitively, or just sit around waiting for yours to get updated." They exacerbated this with things like Escalation, where by far every army is not created equally in terms of the Superheavies/etc. they have access to.

Long story short, if we can use proactive and positive approaches to making missions that permit a wider variety of army tropes to succeed (instead of the base book missions which encourage "big nasty hard to kill or able to avoid being shot at all while snagging at least one objective late in a game where 4/6 base book missions are objectives and another is close to it, plus is hard to win KP against so is good at the last of the book missions) WITHOUT punishing those tropes that are dominant right now.

It's actually possible to be innovative enough to where Jetstar isn't nerfed, but instead armies that currently can't compete are buffed ... all without meddling in composition, force organization charts, rules changes, or ban lists. This also avoids trying to meddle with tournament FORMAT or how people prefer to score them. You really don't want to look at the global community of TOs and say "to participate you have to be a W/L event, or to participate you have to be a Battle Points event, or to participate you have to pair based upon XYZ criteria, or you can't or have to bracket, etc." These components are often the fundamental core of what makes a tournament its own unique experience (often but not always moreso than missions).

Neil Gilstrap of 11th Co, who is an integral part of it, summarizes perhaps best by simplifying it down to - are you being constructive or destructive? Banning and comping and changing rules and rendering peoples' investments illegal or inoperable is destructive. Adding to tournament design in a way that broadens what's competitive w/out nerfing what currently competes is constructive.

I have been playing casual games similar to this for a while. Though I just came up with the idea of scoring a point a turn over time, not having a choice.

The problem that occurred was first turn giving a huge edge rather then second now in objective games, especially with the opportunity for FB.

If you say that a game turn of capture is needed then going second sucks. If you say player turn, then gong first still has the greatest edge.

So my take on this idea was you gain a point for an uncontested objective controlled at the end of the opposing players turn. This way, going first gives you the obvious edge of shooting first BUT if you don't blow them off their home objectives (assuming they have one) then they are gaining points from the start rather then shots and FB. It also eliminates the abuse of last player turn grabs as they would need to capture an objective a turn sooner BUT again would give them last word in contesting that end game point the enemy could be gaining.

The trouble I see with giving a choice, is it allows power builds to continue as usual, ignore objectives until the end of game. It also is hard to keep track of points gained if done secretly, or at least lays the framework for some nasty disagreements on whether or not a unit was 3" vicinity 4 turns earlier or not.

This is why I think a flat change to how missions are scored is a better solution.

Good to see this talk.

People wanting to do there own thing is always going to be a problem.

But your bigger problem IMO is that tournament formats vary too much and you will have a hard getting battle point tournaments to adopt a W-L format or vice cersa and the missions for those formats are different (namely in that the W-L format can't allow for a tie). You almost need to develop two mission books, one for battle points and one for straight win/loss

steinerp wrote:
People wanting to do there own thing is always going to be a problem.

But your bigger problem IMO is that tournament formats vary too much and you will have a hard getting battle point tournaments to adopt a W-L format or vice cersa and the missions for those formats are different (namely in that the W-L format can't allow for a tie). You almost need to develop two mission books, one for battle points and one for straight win/loss

Not as much as you'd think. In most of the W-L formats, there's a Tiebreaker component that doesn't need to be leveraged. In the mission format we're talking about here, there's also a scoring component that leverages points differential for determining whether a player wins or loses (Which translates very easily/elegantly to margin of victory from a BP perspective). AT least for my own contributions, I'll be working to make these work for both, as the NOVA implemented a parallel Battle Points track last year, and we'll be refining the granularity and distribution of that for 2014 either way.

I like the idea of Asymetrical Missions, but I think there should be more than two choices, with some of the choices encouraging people to take assault armies if they wanted to and still be able to score without camping an objective. Such as, you should be able to opt for KP, or maybe gain points by winning challenges, or for each unit you break in combat, etc.

 Samurai_Eduh wrote:
I like the idea of Asymetrical Missions, but I think there should be more than two choices, with some of the choices encouraging people to take assault armies if they wanted to and still be able to score without camping an objective. Such as, you should be able to opt for KP, or maybe gain points by winning challenges, or for each unit you break in combat, etc.

These are good thoughts, and we're working on them as well.

An evolution already is the concept of capping points accrual from primary (i.e., in the objectives example from the article, you would not be able to get more than 9 points from it; so, someone could not just field a "dumb" Tyranid army with a million models and despite getting badly battered, camp 3 objectives for most of the game and assume an insurmountable lead ... similarly, someone could take the tactical gamble of risking most of his army to accrue his 9 points ... and not suffer for a battered opponent just zipping 5 surviving troops models onto 5 barren objectives at the end for a 15-9 win if they chose the standard, etc. etc.).

The counter here is then working on secondaries that are selectable and worth a certain # of capped poitns themselves, and that let armies to the point you make find creative ways to add competitive slants to the mission to suit their strengths (which of course their opponents will also be doing). Again you push the game more toward always being able to be turned into Rock vs. Rock by players once they've reached the table, instead of the idea of Rock Paper Scissors being determined before you ever showed up to the tournament based upon which list you brought.

One of the key things here is we don't want to subjectively decide "Well the community doesn't like Screamerstar or OVesa STar or whatever and so we're going to nerf it." We'd rather proactively create play opportunities that enable others to compete with whatever they want, INCLUDING screamers, ovesa, whatever. It's important both to enable other options of play, but protect those that exist, and thus avoid the act of destroying what people own in order to try and enable others ... earning a net-zero improvement and simply a shifting of the bar of who is and isn't happy.

Shortform - Done right, you should feel you won or lost based upon what you did once you reached the table, and not based upon what (within REASON) army you brought or whether you got unlucky with the combined timing of match-up and mission. You could force this with comp or bans and make the field more vanilla ... or you could find a way to add tactical depth AND add army variety options, thus creating a more diverse and interesting tournament experience w/out negatively impacting (off a community vote of subjectivity) anyone.

Again - constructive vs. destructive.

Watching this develop with great interest as a T.O here in the UK

MVBrandt wrote:
The counter here is then working on secondaries that are selectable and worth a certain # of capped poitns themselves, and that let armies to the point you make find creative ways to add competitive slants to the mission to suit their strengths (which of course their opponents will also be doing). Again you push the game more toward always being able to be turned into Rock vs. Rock by players once they've reached the table, instead of the idea of Rock Paper Scissors being determined before you ever showed up to the tournament based upon which list you brought.

Hmmm... that sounds a bit like the way Malifaux is scored

The trick will be hitting the right balance of complexity vs. flexibility. I think most players could handle choices of secondaries as long as they were simple enough and were consistent across the whole tournament. or at least drawn from a consistent pool of secondary objectives.

MVBrandt wrote:
Neil Gilstrap of 11th Co, who is an integral part of it, summarizes perhaps best by simplifying it down to - are you being constructive or destructive? Banning and comping and changing rules and rendering peoples' investments illegal or inoperable is destructive. Adding to tournament design in a way that broadens what's competitive w/out nerfing what currently competes is constructive.

While I tend to agree with this sentiment in spirit, we also have to be really careful about using loaded language like that as it is so polarizing, you know? Some super popular events use bans and restrictions and that is what their player base wants and I hardly see it as destructive, it is just a choice. Da Boyz GT, for example, is one of the most highly regarded and longest running events in the country and they have traditionally used comp/bans. Also, unless you allows everything in the game, Super Heavies, Data Slates, Stronghold, etc. you are banning some things. If you have a different tournament missions format, or an FAQ, you are changing rules. As I keep saying over and over: we all change the rules to a certain degree, it is just how far we go that separates us. We create in our minds this false difference that some rules can be changed and that is OK, but others cannot. In truth, it is a purely subjective point of view. Unless you play exactly out of the book (which in a lot of cases, is not even possible to do) you are banning/changing/comping/etc.

That said, giving players choice is the right call, IMO. I agree that giving choice and incentives is preferable to taking it away. However, I think all of us agree that unlimited 40K as it exists now, is not really a good choice for a main event format. The Throne of Skulls for example, I will put money on the table right now, is a one way ticket to bizzaro land. The results from that event are going to be bad comedy, IMO. The lists coming out of that will just depress most of us, I am willing to guarantee that.

While that format with no limits can be fun for some people all of the time and most of us some of the time, everything most of us here think of as competitive 40K is blown right out of the window by that type of format. I think some type of restrictions are a necessity. Do we really want an army that is Coteaz+3 Tau Formations? Or a Revenant+Support Units?

If your answer to that is no, then we are talking about banning some stuff. I think all of us are on the same page in that regard, even if only toning down D weapons, altering missions (as here), etc., and therefore, taking a black and white stance that ANY changes is destructive applies to all of us and is obviously, going to piss people off even if unintentionally.

That said,

Yes, some folks will always walk their own road with their format and that is never going to change and is also great! Good on em. However, there is a strong argument to be made for unified format and if we can get even close to that for a number of the bigger events, I am stoked as it means everyone benefits. If it is easy to go to any big event as the format is largely the same, we get more traveling players! The rising tide lifts all ships.

The trick though, is not just talking about a format that benefits the weaker armies while not also inadvertently benefiting the strong armies. Gamers always game the system and will look for ways to maximize advantage within any given system. Also, unintended consequences pop up more in this type of fix than any other and as such you have to be really careful (as I am sure everyone here knows). It will take a lot of time, feedback and testing to get it right.

We are down to help with this project, as stated.

Perhaps we start a list of ideas first and then once we do that, we can start debating pros and cons?

And this is just a list of ideas, not even those I may agree with but those I have heard mentioned lately.

1.) Asymmetrical Missions.
2.) Player mission maker.
3.) Sidebars.
4.) Exterior incentives such as player's choice awards, etc.
5.) Sliding missions.

Any other ideas?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, as for the topic at hand (sorry if it was derailed a bit by introducing more ideas) how would you guys counter the Seercouncil from altering their list to maximize efficacy in the alternative format? For example, if they were to seize all of the objectives in the early game, camp them for a few turns and then focus on stopping you from doing the same, they could conceivably perform better in the alternate format.

A wonderful post by you Reecius.

What you said MVBrandt was all great but I think Reecius here very well pointed out the underlying problem -- Almost everyone playing tournament 40K is already playing a house ruled game whether they realise it or not. Even right now in many of the threads on various Dakka forums there are people arguing vehemently against all composition restrictions while in the same sentence demanding bans on dataslates, superheavies etc.

In short it's not an issue of one side wanting a house ruled game and the other side wanting to play unlimited, it's only a question of how much we want to house rule.

And let's be frank here, 40K isn't a very complicated rules system. I'd say if there's enough people out there who love the game and think that they can balance it better than GW does, now is a good time to unleash your inner games designers and write it all down.

 Reecius wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:
Neil Gilstrap of 11th Co, who is an integral part of it, summarizes perhaps best by simplifying it down to - are you being constructive or destructive? Banning and comping and changing rules and rendering peoples' investments illegal or inoperable is destructive. Adding to tournament design in a way that broadens what's competitive w/out nerfing what currently competes is constructive.

While I tend to agree with this sentiment in spirit, we also have to be really careful about using loaded language like that as it is so polarizing, you know? Some super popular events use bans and restrictions and that is what their player base wants and I hardly see it as destructive, it is just a choice. Da Boyz GT, for example, is one of the most highly regarded and longest running events in the country and they have traditionally used comp/bans. Also, unless you allows everything in the game, Super Heavies, Data Slates, Stronghold, etc. you are banning some things. If you have a different tournament missions format, or an FAQ, you are changing rules. As I keep saying over and over: we all change the rules to a certain degree, it is just how far we go that separates us. We create in our minds this false difference that some rules can be changed and that is OK, but others cannot. In truth, it is a purely subjective point of view. Unless you play exactly out of the book (which in a lot of cases, is not even possible to do) you are banning/changing/comping/etc.

That said, giving players choice is the right call, IMO. I agree that giving choice and incentives is preferable to taking it away. However, I think all of us agree that unlimited 40K as it exists now, is not really a good choice for a main event format. The Throne of Skulls for example, I will put money on the table right now, is a one way ticket to bizzaro land. The results from that event are going to be bad comedy, IMO. The lists coming out of that will just depress most of us, I am willing to guarantee that.

While that format with no limits can be fun for some people all of the time and most of us some of the time, everything most of us here think of as competitive 40K is blown right out of the window by that type of format. I think some type of restrictions are a necessity. Do we really want an army that is Coteaz+3 Tau Formations? Or a Revenant+Support Units?

If your answer to that is no, then we are talking about banning some stuff. I think all of us are on the same page in that regard, even if only toning down D weapons, altering missions (as here), etc., and therefore, taking a black and white stance that ANY changes is destructive applies to all of us and is obviously, going to piss people off even if unintentionally.

That said,

Yes, some folks will always walk their own road with their format and that is never going to change and is also great! Good on em. However, there is a strong argument to be made for unified format and if we can get even close to that for a number of the bigger events, I am stoked as it means everyone benefits. If it is easy to go to any big event as the format is largely the same, we get more traveling players! The rising tide lifts all ships.

The trick though, is not just talking about a format that benefits the weaker armies while not also inadvertently benefiting the strong armies. Gamers always game the system and will look for ways to maximize advantage within any given system. Also, unintended consequences pop up more in this type of fix than any other and as such you have to be really careful (as I am sure everyone here knows). It will take a lot of time, feedback and testing to get it right.

We are down to help with this project, as stated.

Perhaps we start a list of ideas first and then once we do that, we can start debating pros and cons?

And this is just a list of ideas, not even those I may agree with but those I have heard mentioned lately.

1.) Asymmetrical Missions.
2.) Player mission maker.
3.) Sidebars.
4.) Exterior incentives such as player's choice awards, etc.
5.) Sliding missions.

Any other ideas?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, as for the topic at hand (sorry if it was derailed a bit by introducing more ideas) how would you guys counter the Seercouncil from altering their list to maximize efficacy in the alternative format? For example, if they were to seize all of the objectives in the early game, camp them for a few turns and then focus on stopping you from doing the same, they could conceivably perform better in the alternate format.

I think there are some good points here. In general, however, there's a difference between a broad-based application of unit bans and comp restrictions from event to event, all of them being different, than there is with individual events creating unique experiences with composition and the like. DaBoyz isn't putting out there "the game is broken we need to fix it," instead they're saying "we want to create an event where the common netlists are not so common and people can experience different variety from what they're used to seeing all year." What I'd like to make sure we as a community avoid is creating a situation where EVERY event has a completely different bar for what's legal and not.

IT's VERY important not to polarize, and I agree with that general premise; this opportunity to discuss and clarify better, then, is a really good one to have brought up!

In terms of your question - I think the very nature of lists like Crisis singles / kroot with Ovestar, jetbike speed units with Jetcouncil, etc., are the type that suffer in a well-designed mission when trying to rush all the objectives; against an army as currently-seen-as-bad as DA Tac spam, 3-model jetbike units or 5-man avenger units disembarked from their serpents are going to get mauled attempting to score points via the alternate early, while simultaneously will be unable to keep larger tactical squad model counts from actually isolating objectives from contests and earning points of their own early on.

A key point here is of course objective placement - if every single objective is player-placed in this setting, the jetstar type army can "hide" objectives and ensure this potential; if all are fixed, however, you can game it too easily. These are all careful things you need to think about. This is also why it's important for this type of mission tweak to retain the "Standard" 40k objective style ... or else you end up ruining currently viable lists. This is also why some of the evolutions people are suggesting (Neil on this one) are caps on points accrual for Primaries ... giving armies the opportunity to battle for the cap and then not suddenly lose after getting eventually overwhelmed on the raw power front, yada yada. There's much to work through, and the more people contribute the better.

None of this so far is me inventing it all ... it's really been the contribution of a lot of people, including Reece - his comments and suggestions in this very thread are already having a positive impact along with the comments and inputs of a very diverse group. Any final mission pack is not going to be led by or attributed to any one person or one tourney; and the more playtest and feedback and use it gets from the community, the more all those involved can discuss and revise it to hopefully present as many useable (or not!) missions as possible.

Therion -

Very good points as well. Right now I'm not trying to address any issues of what's legal or not ( i.e., dataslates/etc). Instead the only thing folks like Reece, Neil and I are talking about (I think) is what can we do on a mission front to enable a wider variety of armies to compete without explicitly nerfing or banning the armies already perceived as and played as "good?" Can we do it without completely changing on a radical level how all of the missions in the game work? What would these missions look like? Let's playtest 'em!

PS/Edit - Part of my comment there Therion is I don't want this to become another thread where people are arguing about whether Escalation is even a true part of the standard game or an official supplement to the standard game or a smelly duckfaced platypus or what. Those are serious questions (Reece to you as well), about what actually should be chucked into the basic game, but I think it's probably not very constructive to blur the lines and have this become yet another "are D weapons standard or not???" thread.

Instead the only thing folks like Reece, Neil and I are talking about (I think) is what can we do on a mission front to enable a wider variety of armies to compete without explicitly nerfing or banning the armies already perceived as and played as "good?" Can we do it without completely changing on a radical level how all of the missions in the game work? What would these missions look like? Let's playtest 'em!

The approach that everything is legal but the outrageous stuff is toned down is easily the most accepted one all around the world. People don't want to buy models and find that they're not allowed in games.

That said, superheavies and GW fortifications are models too, and yet people are so quick to show them the middle finger. A lot of people paid a lot of money to own some of that stuff, and I'm sure you won't find any resistance from those people if you say sure man bring your Warhound but the stats for those turbo-lasers and how they work are printed on this tournament leaflet.

My point is that once you decide that you're going to keep an open mind and not ban Screamerstars (or anything else) and are willing to go at it from a missions and terrain perspective, you should hold on to that same principle and imagine the Reaver Titan in those same missions. If that's where you draw the line you didn't really follow your own advice at all.

 Therion wrote:

Instead the only thing folks like Reece, Neil and I are talking about (I think) is what can we do on a mission front to enable a wider variety of armies to compete without explicitly nerfing or banning the armies already perceived as and played as "good?" Can we do it without completely changing on a radical level how all of the missions in the game work? What would these missions look like? Let's playtest 'em!

The approach that everything is legal but the outrageous stuff is toned down is easily the most accepted one all around the world. People don't want to buy models and find that they're not allowed in games.

That said, superheavies and GW fortifications are models too, and yet people are so quick to show them the middle finger. A lot of people paid a lot of money to own some of that stuff, and I'm sure you won't find any resistance from those people if you say sure man bring your Warhound but the stats for those turbo-lasers and how they work are printed on this tournament leaflet.

My point is that once you decide that you're going to keep an open mind and not ban Screamerstars (or anything else) and are willing to go at it from a missions perspective, you should hold on to that same principle and imagine the Reaver Titan in those same missions. If that's where you draw the line you didn't really follow your own advice at all.

This was my edit above, you ninja'ed me haha
Part of my comment there Therion is I don't want this to become another thread where people are arguing about whether Escalation is even a true part of the standard game or an official supplement to the standard game or a smelly duckfaced platypus or what. Those are serious questions (Reece to you as well), about what actually should be chucked into the basic game, but I think it's probably not very constructive to blur the lines and have this become yet another "are D weapons standard or not???" thread.

I understand that and that's why I didn't debate that subject. I just said that if you're willing to take on an ambitious project and try to make re-rollable 2++ invulnerable saves and whatnot balanced by radically changing the missions landscape, you should try to make absolutely everything playable. If you succeed in the former I'm sure a Reaver Titan will be a breeze. That's a project worth fighting for

I'm all for trying to permit as much as possible, but at some point, there's going to be a limit. Its possible to reach a point where the only solution for balance is to ridiculously increase the points level, which is impractical for a whole variety of reasons.

This is what we ran into at the AdeptiCon Gladiator, after the year that Reaver Titans dominated. Every fix we tried to impose didn't work, and so we ended up having to ban Reavers (well, effectively ban them by limiting the number of structure points allowed).

Yeah, that's where my logic kept bringing me as well. I could not think of anything that limited the 2+ reroll death stars that didn't at least equally limit everything else, thereby being futile at best, more imbalancing at worst.

I am not, at all, saying it can't be done. It's just that some things in the game are so OP right now that it seems that they are going to be better than anything else irregardless of the format. D Weapons and 2+ Deathstars come to mind for me. The rest at least to me personally, is palatable.

If you have a Shotgun and I have a Slingshot, no matter how we structure a shooting match, you still have the advantage, you know?

So, again, not trying to be a downer but given the time restraints faced with for the LVO, we were glad our community simply said no to both the outliers. I think it brings us closer to the middle where the majority of people are happier.

The future though, is open and we are open to it.

@Therion

Thanks for the support and, yeah, that is the funny thing, isn't it? The cognitive dissonance in our community is funny. "You can change rules as long as they're rules I don't like. If you change rules I like, you're doing something wrong."

@Bill

Yeah, I remember that. And to me, that is what the D is now, or the 2+ save is now. They simply are garbage rules mechanics that shouldn't even be in the game, truth be told.

@Mike

So, let's assume we all accept that we are willing to say no to at least D weapons and that is a given for now.

What about lists? Are we discussing unrestricted list building? I very strongly feel that is a mistake. The more rules sources players can draw from the more lists will start to look alike as players Cherry Pick the best units from each source. Ironically the increased options will diminish variety.

I think some type of restriction on list building is going to be necessary, even if just: no Super Heavies, no Formations and/or a limitation on the number of sources you can draw on.

From there, mission format.

One thing we have been discussing a lot is really in-line with the idea on the table. A Mission Builder.

Each player can "bid" on conditions such as deployment, night fight, primary and secondary missions. This means the skilled player can build a mission to combat their current opponent. Since you dice off to decide who chooses first, you can't just pick the same factors each time. This, in theory, means you can partially shape the mission to help you.

Again though, a good player with a Jetseer Council for example, can conceivably gain an even larger advantage in this format when it is designed to actually increase the power of their opponent, relatively.

I just keep coming back to that: how do you make missions that actually impede the power lists while benefiting the weaker lists? The issue I keep having is if no matter how you design the race track, the Ferrari is still going to smoke the Prius more often than not.

I think we would have to really change the way things are done to accomplish the goal using missions, like in a fairly dramatic way.

 Therion wrote:
That said, superheavies and GW fortifications are models too, and yet people are so quick to show them the middle finger. A lot of people paid a lot of money to own some of that stuff, and I'm sure you won't find any resistance from those people if you say sure man bring your Warhound but the stats for those turbo-lasers and how they work are printed on this tournament leaflet.

My point is that once you decide that you're going to keep an open mind and not ban Screamerstars (or anything else) and are willing to go at it from a missions and terrain perspective, you should hold on to that same principle and imagine the Reaver Titan in those same missions. If that's where you draw the line you didn't really follow your own advice at all.

You know I'll accept the "but I paid to have all this expertly painted now I can't play it" argument but it only goes so far, you can't tell me players were anticipating the fall of the berlin wall between 40k and apoc and somehow had the prescience to get their super heavies and mega fortresses painted just in case out of nowhere a few months down the line all of that stuff would be a-ok in tournaments.



I agree that working on improving game balance via mission and table setup is a good idea, but if no one can agree on what game we're attempting to balance (escaltion, apoc, 40k, the fortification book thing) it's not a good jumping off point.


I personally think you'd wanna lock down variables of how each table is setup before moving on to missions. Back in the day, it was real simple, the staff sets up the boards and the attendees play on them, 6th ed has muddied those waters and mostly its to be inclusive to fortifications (landing pad and fortress aren't exactly small models). My perspective, if you can't lock down those variables you're going to have a hard time making variable or choose your own missions work well. I like the idea, but you have to lock down some variables first or you're just spinning wheels.

As mike pointed out, you probably shouldn't start messing with how objectives are placed but at the same time allowing players to place them makes a "fair" terrain setup incredibly important. I respect Reece a lot for putting a couple big los blockers on each table for the upcoming LVO but different events vary drastically in the amount, type and placement methodology of terrain.

We all know it’s in no way possible to follow the brb’s terrain density, especially seeing as it generalizes terrain down to roughly 12x12 inches and its possible to generate between 6 and 18 pieces of terrain, the logistics alone are insane.

Add to that stuff you will likely see on the table if you do an “everything in” tournament like the void shield crap, having no model is going to be rife for abuse and you're going to see a big variable in design and size.

If you don’t control your variables, testing doesn’t do much.

Oh and yeah, as for the objective placement idea, that is really important, well said. If you can hide the Objectives, Jetbikes (or similar units) can be on them all from turn one and just ratchet up the points while the other player can do nothing to stop them and the game is over before it starts. Bummer.

But like you said, fixed objectives may not work. You could force them to be in a certain place in the open, for example, with set terrain. However, that may inadvertently hurt other armies that were already struggling. It is a sticky issue. In the end, any decisions we make will have some negative consequences either in mad players or unintended consequences, hahaha, I think the trick is just screwing up the least! ;p

So if I was facing a tourny with this format, I would just take armies with lots of reliable troops, say massed eldar jetbikes (maxed squads with as many as possible). I would select the alternative and boost onto objectives and claim as many as possible per turn. Of course when it comes to objective placement and viewing my opponents army I would place objectives where I could easily reach them.

Say 1850 list

Autarch with possible mantle for boosting and contesting with silly cover save, hit and run on the autarch

6 warlocks with jetbikes, always going for conceal

9 man squad eldar jetbikes x6

3 night spinners to remove their troops off objectives

and few pts left over.


Or how about the DA.

Sammy

6 units of scouting bikes with a few dark shrouds in there for good jink saves

few other units to remove their troops.

So both lists has lots of troops with good saves (eldar being massed 2+ covers).


It will only change how lists are built to cater for that particular tournament IMO. (then I read the post above and see the above sort of already being discussed.)