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.

@Crabelzworth

You said it, it is difficult to even begin to discuss this topic as we are all working from a different baseline! haha

 Reecius wrote:
@Crabelzworth

You said it, it is difficult to even begin to discuss this topic as we are all working from a different baseline! haha

It's the scientist in me lol

MarkyMark wrote:
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.)

Gamers being gamers and gaming the system

The funny thing is how FAST they break the system! It blows my mind sometimes. We find crappy OP combos within a day or two of having a new codex because we look for them.

Sigh. If only GW would do external play-testing like, you know, every other game company, all of this would be so easily avoidable.

 Reecius wrote:

MarkyMark wrote:
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.)

Gamers being gamers and gaming the system

The funny thing is how FAST they break the system! It blows my mind sometimes. We find crappy OP combos within a day or two of having a new codex because we look for them.

Sigh. If only GW would do external play-testing like, you know, every other game company, all of this would be so easily avoidable.

Gamers will find solutions. Fortunately the ones presented here are neither isolated solutions nor ideal ones for a situation where your mission variety isn't "accumulated points only every round." Additionally, with the fragility and exposure to torrent of both of those concepts, and a points for primary cap, there'd have to be a better solution list wise than just "snag all early." But this is rather key.

The design concepts here are specifically for the playtesters. It'll be a fun road from the initial primers to the final concept.

Also Reece, the thing of it is, you can actually make the prius compete with the Ferrari. What if it's a gas mileage endurance race? Think outside the box. What if it's two races, one gas mileage and one raw speed. Then what if the net winner is the one with the best bet combined and normalized performance between the fuel efficiency test and the speed trial? Change the conditions of the race. I'll take a shot with the prius, thanks, and we haven't ruled the Ferrari out either.

Think at the problem from a new direction.

PS - I think what you're doing for Vegas is great! You surveyed attendees and made firm and pretty fair rulings on a tight timetable!

Also Reece, the thing of it is, you can actually make the prius compete with the Ferrari. What if it's a gas mileage endurance race? Think outside the box. What if it's two races, one gas mileage and one raw speed. Then what if the net winner is the one with the best bet combined and normalized performance between the fuel efficiency test and the speed trial? Change the conditions of the race. I'll take a shot with the prius, thanks, and we haven't ruled the Ferrari out either.

That's a pretty good way to put it and funnily enough quite close to real world skirmish situations. For example, one side has to rescue some prisoners, and the other side is trying to make it as costly as possible for the intruders.

@Mike

Thanks! Yeah, it is always a bit scary to make changes to format when money is on the line but I believe we did the right thing. Templecon is using similar guidelines it seems.

At any rate, to the topic at hand.

I am going to assume we are all discussing at this point a format with the following:

1.) No Escalation
2.) No Stronghold assault
3.) No Formations.

I am not saying that is the right or wrong way to approach this but that is a good baseline from which to work for a 'general purpose' format and what most of the folks I have talked to are learning towards at this point.

How do we make a mission that benefits one faction but not another?

The objective farming idea is good but needs play-testing as we poke holes in the idea with potential issues but really, we need to try it in the context of 6th (I last tried it in 5th). Then, I had a Drop Pod army and won these missions with such ease, it wasn't even a game. I dropped onto objectives and then bum rushed my opponent with a distraction force and even if he killed my distraction units and most of my troops, it was too late to get back into the game.

What stunk was the feeling the other player had of watching him/herself lose and realize they couldn't stop it by turn 3.

So, again, not being negative at all, I think the idea (and ideas like it) have merit and I want to make this work. We will just need to work through the problems.

In a layered mission this is offset by the second win condition, so perhaps I am making a bigger deal of it than it needs to be.

The upside is that it does encourage armies to engage one another and to maneuver. I do like that a lot.

So, say, you had a primary win condition that was variable, either you could pick to farm objectives or you could play traditional objectives.

You could then set a secondary win condition of Kill Points with another variable, such as troops being worth more points, or HQ, or Transport vehicles or Monstrous Creatures, or whatever based on your opponent's list (for example they have 6 HQ's or some nonsense like that, Coteaz+Inquisitor+4 Rune Priests, 5 riptides or what have you).

That means you can alter your strategy to benefit from their large number of HQs, Serpents, Drakes, MCs or whatever, but the other player can still take them if they want to knowing that they run a risk by maxing out a certain type of unit. They then have to think twice about it or play to just overpower them with pure power. It is reverse comp in a sense, but it still allows freedom of choice.

So, now you have a mission that allows a player to alter their win conditions based upon their opponent's army.

How do those ideas strike you guys?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
But then, how does that mitigate the 2+ reroll units? Those are a real problem in the game, in my eyes.

I think people need to stop looking at the question how is it going to mitigate x army...in my mind that is missing the point (which if I understand it is to allow armies to compete in a meaningful way not nerf certain armies.). The way to think about it is can other armies use their strengths to fight those armies..in a way that makes the game meaningful and fun.

 Reecius wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:
But then, how does that mitigate the 2+ reroll units? Those are a real problem in the game, in my eyes.

The same way it always does. Having objectives scored every turn means a Screamerstar army must present its vulnerable troops. Without banning anything, the best way to beat screamerstar is by killing troops. All this format would do is force the army to either invest in tougher scoring or potentially lose long term. The screamer unit can only contest one objective a turn. (I love the article and suggested format, for the record)

@Breng77

At the risk of sounding rude, I look forward to your article on how to beat the Jetseer Council with any "normal" army. If you can solve that riddle then we can stop this conversation now, I suppose. We have all established that these armies are beatable but that they have such an overwhelming advantage that they make the game not fun to play. And now, the best players are picking them up and playing with them. So you get the double whammy of a crazy lame army piloted by a pro.

@Jifel

That's the point though, what happens when an army like the one you described simply adapts? Instead of cheapy little units, maybe 2 big units of Horrors or Plague Bearers that jump onto objectives and then go to ground, etc.

What about Jetbikes? Or any fast scoring/denial units, etc.?

How does it impact all the other armies, etc.?

I am not saying it won't work at all, what I am saying is that throeyhammer is great but not conclusive. We need to try stuff out. We can't just say, "it sounds great," and run with it, as then you end up with unintended consequences that can be worse than what they are trying to cure.

So excited there is excitement here! My last few days have been so much brighter thinking about 40K than the last couple of weeks! Actually excited about the game at the moment.

@Reece

Totally following you on the baseline thing.

You know, not going to lie here, I'll be freakin' crazy happy if we can come up with missions that allow more competitive builds outside of 2+ Stars, Tau, Eldar, and Demons, LET ALONE even start addressing what to do with TItans. So, in terms of baseline, agree with that 100%.

I truly think if we can make 40K "work right" again in this kind of manner, it'll be much more palpable and easier to get in that extra stuff that people want from all the December releases IF in a few months people even really still want it.

I think that if we can accomplish some semblance of that as a community, people will be a lot less worried about the Escalation stuff. But, like you know, right now, we're already reeling from Jetstars and Ovesastars and the blowback towards the MOAR new stuff is just a product of that.

So, I'm supporting that notion 100%. We got some business to take care of to put this house in order that GW has left in shambles. Then, I think we can address the Escalation, Stronghold, Formations, etc.

Hell, we got to prove we can even get this kind if idea off the ground and limping along first.


-----------------------------------

@ Convo about 2+ Stars and Missions etc.

Keeping in mind the idea of an objective mission in this format was a kickstarter not fully fledged.

That being said, a Jetstar simply CAN'T turbo around on turn 1 and take fixed objectives because in doing so he's exposing the gimpy little 3 man jetbike squads to enemy fire.

Like all D-Stars, you spread out enough, legimitately, he can only kill 1 unit a turn, maybe a couple if he gets a lucky multi- off.

But if he still wants to win the game on Objectives, normal style, he's gotta conserve those very vulnerable wimpy troop squads. But also, the Jetstar can't be everywhere at once, either! So, likewise, if the DAngels player starts accumulating points, the Jetstar can't contest everything, and if he wants to try and contest, he'd once again, have to expose the wimpy parts of his army to enemy fire.

That's the theory behind that concept. So, the DAngel player has a REAL strategic shot, in theory, of making a primary happen even against a match-up he would lose in a normal game to almost guaranteed.

Meanwhile, the Jetstar player can still fight the DAngel player and do what he always does, capture objectives late game and get his primary, in theory.

And THEN, we move on to secondaries, etc.


@ Reece and Secondaries Ideas ala KP and alterations etc.

See! Great minds think alike. LOL. This is exactly the thought direction we were going today with secondaries in conversation. Take existing 40K concepts, spruce 'em up a little so that they are varied, viable, and competitive for a variety of army types. Just like that.

Haven't thought of any yet myself but like idea that is going with KPs.

First off just getting many of these armies to take large durable troops is a victory. Right now it seems the way to win in 6th is to hide your scoring units as long as possible. Jetstars have min Jetbike squads or dire avengers hidden in Serpents. Tau take outflanking Kroot, Necrons hide min warrior squads in Nightscythes. Keep your scoring units as small and as safe as possible and let the rest of your army go out and kill the enemy scoring units. Just by making these lists spend more on troops and less on uber stuff is a small victory.

You can't release the mission packs until the day of the event for this to work properly of course, which is an awesome way to spring it on those that show up.

The potential for this to comp without comping is... quite interesting to say the least.

 Matt1785 wrote:
You can't release the mission packs until the day of the event for this to work properly of course, which is an awesome way to spring it on those that show up.

The potential for this to comp without comping is... quite interesting to say the least.

I think that runs counter to the whole thing, I think the entire point is that even knowing about the variable missions doesn't tell you which one your opponent will choose.




Kudos on the baseline, I think that's a damn good start.




Here are my suggestions to spice things, I'm really just spitballing so I'm sure these all have pitfalls::

Consider varying what can score mission to mission from heavy to fast to elite, troops still always remaining scoring units in each. (not sure how you'd add choice into this)

Something along the lines of vital objective (worth more vp's) but you lose one of your objectives to make another vital or something along those lines.

Certain objectives cannot be contested, you must wipeout the unit holding it or can only be contested by other troops, units that could normally contest cannot. Something along those lines.

@Darth

Good point on encouraging people to actually put troops on the table! haha, that by itself is actually a victory. However, in this proposed format they wouldn't have to as they could opt for the "normal" win condition and then just play to blast you off of the objective.

However, it does give the other player a chance AND if forces the other player to focus on killing the troops.

@Neil

Yeah, it is a good idea and I believe we can work something out with all our heads put together.

We will have to try the KP secondary, too. I think that can be an inverse way to deal with spam units. You can still take them, but you run the risk of playing through a disadvantage if you do so. So, instead of it being the no brainer choice, it becomes a risk/reward scenario.

@Breng77

Sorry if I sounded short in my last post. You are of course right, it is just that we have come to a point where it feels like the writing is on the wall with some of these units.

Learning how to beat them is the obvious choice, no doubt. It just baffles us as to how to do that and perhaps using mission design helps people to accomplish this task.

@Crabelzworth

You were right, we need to start somewhere. That may not be it, but with D weapons I really don't see unlimited Super Heavies in anything outside of an Apoc event or a for fun game.Same for Stronghold. I could easily see 90%+ of armies taking Void Shields and how dumb that could get.

But, a lot of the stuff is really cool in both of those books and there might be room for some of it?

However, we need a starting point.

@Thread

Ok,

So we'll try this scenario out below, anyone else that wants to is free to help out and provide feedback.

Random book deployment.

Win Condition 1: player choice of normal objectives (let's say crusade style, D3+2) scored 3pts per at game's end, or, scored per game turn held at the end of the turn, 1pt per. (Probably need to restrict objective placement as this can get ultra lopsided using book objective placement).

Player with the most objective points at game's end achieves this win condition for 4 battle points.

Win Condition 2: Kill Points scored normally with the following modifier: each player picks one of the following to be worth double KP: HQ, Troops, Elites, HS, FA or dedicated Transports.

Player with the most Kill Points at game's end achieves this win condition for 3 battle points.

Book bonus points worth 1 battle point each.

10 total battle points available in the mission.

For anyone thinking about the accumulation objective idea, I know that Warmahordes' Steamroller format, which uses the accumulation to threshold mechanic for scenarios, keeps the objectives inactive until the second player's second turn. This allows for less mobile armies to have a chance against more mobile armies that would just do what Eldar Jetbike units would do in the accumulation format: quickly move onto objectives and get enough points before they're shot off that they have a great advantage early on. Of course, the objective placement is determined by the scenario, rather than by the player, but it's still a thought to keep in mind.

Couple of things I would add that came up today in discussion about trying to refine that mission concept (in addition to others)

As the Primary, you probably want to cap the points you can possibly accure. Say like 9 or 12 or something like that. You don't want a Scenario where the guy accrues so many points he can no longer lose the game. (not clear on what that looks like)

So, if you set the points to max at like 9, that means the opposing player to TIE that objective would need to control 3 objectives at game end in the traditional manner. (Which is super cool BTW because it's no longer about "I control 1 and I win!")

Or, the opposing side would actually need to block the opponent from accruing points to reduce the number of objectives he needs to control on the last turn.

Or they can both opt for the same mission, etc.


Think fixed objectives is probably a must in this scenario as has been pointed out. Not sure on number there or placement. Haven't really thought that through myself. 5 or 6, nods to Crusade or Scouring, etc. Something like that.


Not sure on optimal deployment either but probably relative to objective placement.


The KP thing I think is actually is elegantly complex too. Because of the nature of the objectives placement, carefulyl selecting the right units based on your oppponents expectations for the primary means you could strategically select your options.

For example, playing Screamerstar:

Screamerstar WORKS by putting most of its squishy units in reserve while ramming Screamerstar + Whatever down your throat. TO continue that strategy, he will have to choose to want to control objectives late game.

Naturally, you will choose to points accrue thinking he can't be everywhere at once.

He's got a problem now because he can't contest you so well with just one unit or maybe he can... to be decided...

But you know you will be spending the whole game shooting at either DPs, or Grinders, or something of that Nature... certainly not the Screamerstar... so you opt for Heavy for extra KPs which really puts him in a tactical bind now... etc.

Same goes for Jetstar. He's got to make some very key choices around his utilization of those 3 man jetbike squads... and more importantly, if he wants to get aggressive with them somehow... you nominate them as bonus KPs, etc.

What if instead of capping the amounting points total for the game, you cap them for the turn? So instead of using 9 or 12 max points for round to round obj grabbing, cap how.many you get a turn.

Say we max it out at 3 points max a turn for holding objectives. This.would prevent armies like pods or bikers who throw their whole army on all 5 or 6 objectives in the first and second turns and accrue 12 points by the start of turn 3. By capping the amount of points at say 3, it does.not allow those kind.of armies to stock up on points and then pretty much auto-win the mission.

The cap at 3 points allows them to earn a number of points for.the mission but still.allows the other player to.be in the game competitively. Obviously this would scale depending on objectives and possible.secondary mission parameters. You couldn't have 3 be the cap with only 3 objectives on the table. But you could have it be 2 or a half point earned per objective instead of a full point.

I do think secondaries are needed this.type of.format. Without them people can accrue enough points, whether it is capped or not, and then do nothing for the rest of the game and win. We can't have that as it would not be fun for either party. Throwing in kill points or table quarters to count for secondaries is viable and can solve some of the issues that can creep up.

I like where this is going. It allows people to play whatever army they want and enables them to.pick a situation more conducive to.their style.of play or army. It requires generalship and tactics, something I think this game could use more of.

Question, for the missions, would each player know.what parameter their opponent chooses before the game or would be kept secret until after game? Meaning, if I'm playing Reece and he chooses to earn objective points every round, will I know he is going that route or do I need to guess what he is going to choose? I think not knowing adds a very nice element to the game, but enforcing it and preventing people from changing their choice may be hard to relegate.

@ Reece - no offense taken...I'm with you on the idea that I don't know if this will work or not. I just think we are better off approaching if from a standpoint of does this make the game against 2+ re-rollable deathstars not only winnable but more enjoyable...than we are approaching it from "how does this mission directly nerf those deathstars." I also feel this attitude needs to apply to things like Ovesastar, Tau gunline, serpent spam. None of which are unbeatable, but all of which can dominate in some of the current missions.

I like the KP secondary idea put forth. As for the capping points thing...because a player will inherently be risking assets to control objectives I'm not sure that capping it (unless you also do so at game end) works all that great. The idea of capping it per turn might be better, in conjunction it a higher game cap.

You would def cap both if you went with a cap. Not just one.

So, if 9 was max points you could accumulate, 9 would be max points for holding objectives too.

The game plan for the accumulator then becomes this:

Step 1) Hold as many Objectives as I can for as long as I can to accrue points

Step 2) Kill enemy troops to prevent them from being able to hold the number of objectives they need in late game to contest my accumulated score. and/or contest enough objectives.


And if you tie it at 9 each, then it's a tied objective. Or whatever gets used for the scenario.

But in this manner, this dramatically improves the game vs. a 2+ re-roll opponent who relies on super fragile late game contest/control strategies. Because killing his troops now means a LOT more than it did before.

The way it is now, he really only needs one troop to win the game. He can just turbo-contest any other objectives the enemy might still be holding, etc.

But in this scenario, he needs more than one troop left to win game. He's gotta figure that angle out making the mission strategically interesting for him but also harder, which is good so that he isn't just playing LOLSteamROLl1 fest and having a fun, tactical game too.

If i missed this reading through the thread, sorry. However, reading your proposal on missions, I am not sure it effects the Meta much. For example Seer Council. Many of the players who design these lists have been trained their whole lives to "fix" or better things (example: engineers). In this light and being one of these type persons, I would look at my list and see if I could just table my opponent. If it could, I have no need to change my list.

VP earned towards an objective mean little if I have been tabled. Tabling your opponent, at many events means you get all the Battle points. How would your missions address this?

In the case where it won't table most oppoents, then I simply put 1 troop on my safest objective and deny all your objectives each round with my seer council. Why would a mission designer assume that a troop heavy list won't be denied objectives by the invincible units?

Well designed missions have the potential to change the Meta but I think that designing them properly is an extrememly difficult task. If designed poorly, they will only hurt the non-maximised lists.

 The_Rogue_Engineer wrote:
If i missed this reading through the thread, sorry. However, reading your proposal on missions, I am not sure it effects the Meta much. For example Seer Council. Many of the players who design these lists have been trained their whole lives to "fix" or better things (example: engineers). In this light and being one of these type persons, I would look at my list and see if I could just table my opponent. If it could, I have no need to change my list.

VP earned towards an objective mean little if I have been tabled. Tabling your opponent, at many events means you get all the Battle points. How would your missions address this?

In the case where it won't table most oppoents, then I simply put 1 troop on my safest objective and deny all your objectives each round with my seer council. Why would a mission designer assume that a troop heavy list won't be denied objectives by the invincible units?

Well designed missions have the potential to change the Meta but I think that designing them properly is an extrememly difficult task. If designed poorly, they will only hurt the non-maximised lists.

Nothing says a tabling must equal a win, nor does seer council excel at tabling. Further, the council will not be able to contest every objective every turn unless you yourself have brought such small units you can't wrap / make inviolate the objectives. Unless you make objective placement *entirely* player driven and/or use too few objectives, this scenario is unlikely to occur.

MVBrandt wrote:

 The_Rogue_Engineer wrote:
If i missed this reading through the thread, sorry. However, reading your proposal on missions, I am not sure it effects the Meta much. For example Seer Council. Many of the players who design these lists have been trained their whole lives to "fix" or better things (example: engineers). In this light and being one of these type persons, I would look at my list and see if I could just table my opponent. If it could, I have no need to change my list.

VP earned towards an objective mean little if I have been tabled. Tabling your opponent, at many events means you get all the Battle points. How would your missions address this?

In the case where it won't table most oppoents, then I simply put 1 troop on my safest objective and deny all your objectives each round with my seer council. Why would a mission designer assume that a troop heavy list won't be denied objectives by the invincible units?

Well designed missions have the potential to change the Meta but I think that designing them properly is an extrememly difficult task. If designed poorly, they will only hurt the non-maximised lists.

Nothing says a tabling must equal a win, nor does seer council excel at tabling. Further, the council will not be able to contest every objective every turn unless you yourself have brought such small units you can't wrap / make inviolate the objectives. Unless you make objective placement *entirely* player driven and/or use too few objectives, this scenario is unlikely to occur.

On your second point, I beg to differ. The seer council can spread out to cover great amount of ground. I would instead suggest one unit can only contest one objective. wrapping objectives does depend on placement. MIke, I am not sure how it happens at your events, but hte ones I go to usually have player based objectives and can be manipulated.

To the larger point, I don't see these missions as encouraging players to break from the current net lists.

 The_Rogue_Engineer wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:

 The_Rogue_Engineer wrote:
If i missed this reading through the thread, sorry. However, reading your proposal on missions, I am not sure it effects the Meta much. For example Seer Council. Many of the players who design these lists have been trained their whole lives to "fix" or better things (example: engineers). In this light and being one of these type persons, I would look at my list and see if I could just table my opponent. If it could, I have no need to change my list.

VP earned towards an objective mean little if I have been tabled. Tabling your opponent, at many events means you get all the Battle points. How would your missions address this?

In the case where it won't table most oppoents, then I simply put 1 troop on my safest objective and deny all your objectives each round with my seer council. Why would a mission designer assume that a troop heavy list won't be denied objectives by the invincible units?

Well designed missions have the potential to change the Meta but I think that designing them properly is an extrememly difficult task. If designed poorly, they will only hurt the non-maximised lists.

Nothing says a tabling must equal a win, nor does seer council excel at tabling. Further, the council will not be able to contest every objective every turn unless you yourself have brought such small units you can't wrap / make inviolate the objectives. Unless you make objective placement *entirely* player driven and/or use too few objectives, this scenario is unlikely to occur.

On your second point, I beg to differ. The seer council can spread out to cover great amount of ground. I would instead suggest one unit can only contest one objective. wrapping objectives does depend on placement. MIke, I am not sure how it happens at your events, but hte ones I go to usually have player based objectives and can be manipulated.

To the larger point, I don't see these missions as encouraging players to break from the current net lists.

At NOVA traditionally, most objectives are fixed. That said, we're not designing the missions for just NOVA, so at least some objectives will be player-placed. Regardless of what any of us see, however, we'll have at least one test mission polished off soon to actually get real bat reps and feedback

Also, for anyone doing playtesting, let us assume the following restrictions that I hope are non-controversial:

1. No Apoc super-heavy units
2. No D weapons
3. No fortifications from the new book

No other restrictions at this point because I don't think there is enough of a consensus on supplements and actual rules changes.

Can we get an update in the OP of what the ALPHA test rule set is?

We'll have an updated alpha test mission today.

As to the objective mission, more discussion this morning, and here's what we are thinking:

6 Objectives
-- 4 x Fixed in corner, 2 player placed following normal rules

For Cumulative:
-- 1 point/turn held MAX: 9 Points in game.

For Regular Objectives:
- 3 points/objective. MAX: 9 Points.

Tie objective if you both get 9.



Still debating secondary mission stuff! There's a lot of format differences on secondaries like secondary objectives, or tie breakers, etc.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Reece

Thinking about a KP modification now that might help.

Trying to identify armies that need help in KPs too.

Biggest KP offenders I'm thinking are either invinco-units, which are obvious, but also just "Star" lists in general. An Ovessa Star comes to mind or a list with 5 x Riptides in it, etc.

First thoughts there are nominating a set of units is cool because I can nominate something that isn't ridiculously invincible!

Reservations though that come up for me is then invinco-star nominates something of mine too, and I really have no way to stop invinco-star for doing what it wants, by virtue of being invincible.


We'd through too about an Alternate to do Points instead of KPs, and that is better against say 5 riptide spam, but Invinco-star is still invincible and worth 1/2 someeone's army.



Brainstorming to find some critical piece for inclusion...

The first alpha test mission is being reviewed presently by as many TOs and players as we can track down to vet the initial presentation. We'll work on more missions as the alpha is out getting concrete playtest started.

Present reviewers this moment include NOVA, LVO/BAO, FOB, 11th, BFS, Indy, Bugeater, ETC and more.


The intent here is to develop an Independent GT Mission Catalog, with playtested and vetted missions toward the net conceptual goal of this idea. These missions may reflect the net community, or to varying degrees by mission individual TO preferences. The hope is by having everyone involved, any # of TOs in any # of events *can* choose to use some of the missions in their final GT packets and rightly state not "We're using these couple missions that we copied from NOVA/FOB/LVO/etc.," but "We're using a select # of our missions chosen from the IGTMC, and we directly participated in their design and playtest."

This looks pretty promising. I'm running a tournament on 19 January and after talking it over on our local forum, we're willing to help playtest this system there. Our tournament is at 1950 and will follow normal force organization. We are not allowing Lords of War but are using Stronghold Assault minus any fortifications with a strength "D" weapon. No formations. We do use player placed objectives, but we have a modified order of operations where terrain and objectives are placed before sides are chosen. Players with fortifications can then remove terrain in their half if needed to place a fortification instead.

Here is my spin on the standard/alternate scoring techniques:

Standard Scoring: Per the mission objectives listed in the BRB, except the Relic is worth 5 VPs if held at the end of the game.

Alternate Scoring:
Objectives: You score 1 point for each objective you hold at the end of any game turn, to a maximum of 3 per objective for the mission (i.e. in a 5 objective crusade mission, you could score 15 points using this technique). Mission specific bonus points for Heavy Metal and Fast Recon do not count towards the cap.

Kill Points: Instead of normal kill points, total up the points values of all units destroyed instead. You only score points for units that are fully destroyed. You win the mission if you have destroyed more points of your opponents army than he has of yours. If one player selects standard scoring and one player selects alternate scoring and both players win using their respective technique, the kill point mission is considered a draw.

Relic: At the end of any game turn in which you hold the Relic, you score 1 point. You may not score more than 5 points in this manner.

Who from ETC is reviewing it? the ETC board or one of the member countries that will be hosting the ETC?.

Due to the nature of the ETC I doubt they would go down this route nor would it pass a captains vote but is interesting none the less.

Honestly I do think it will be a case of list building to take advantage of rules like this. In the case of 6 objectives 4 in corners and 2 player placed the Eldar list I posted above would score 3 objectives easy enough and put 3 night spinner barrage shots into their objectives. For the relic asault moving 2+cover jetbike squads on the relic from turn 1.....

It will also make players want to go second?. As objectives are scored end of game turn they can easily be scored by the 2nd player as nothing can then stop him scoring those objectives bar contesting.