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.

quiestdeus wrote:

ngilstrap wrote:
Not to be overlooked here but if this kind of mission makes it at least feasible that people can bring an army to a tournament that isn't Jetstar, Tau gun-lines, etc., that opens doors for more diversity.

I think all I am trying to point out is that this is a faulty assumption for the majority of players. I have no idea - but I would be curious how many people really poured over the NOVA mission packet and tailored their lists to those missions. (Sorry, sticking with NOVA as an example because it is what I am most familiar with).

I will concede it is probably better to have the option and not take it, that to be stuck in the mud like things currently are - but I guess I am not as optimistic that people will analyze these complex missions and bring an interesting scalpel when the hammer they have played with for the past N months is still equally viable. Does that make sense? And after talking it through with my gaming group I am now more concerned that my little bubble of casual-"competitive" (i.e., the lower brackets) will become more like what you noted.

I did NOT play screamerstar, or any of those broken lists at NOVA, as once I started losing (and those lists kept winning because they are silly) I had nothing to fear going into my bracket. I ended up playing an awesome ork-necron list, a beautifully painted 3 riptide tau army (which I beat ) and an honest-to-goodness farsight bomb. Things are already plenty diverse from my point of view.

My point is, the middle and lower tiers already have diversity, that is where the "fun" lists already end when they lose to the broken ones. The upper tiers are what seem to be suffering from a lack of diversity. Right now I have little-to-no concern about playing one of those broken lists I presume I cannot have a fun game against (which is different than beating) but with these new missions a solitaire list could be around any corner. Just because the missions are designed to give me a chance to win does not suddenly make the game fun. Does that make sense? (not a sarcastic question at all, I just want to make sure my concern is clear because your reply did not really touch on it)

I respect you want diversity at the top tables because you are sick of seeing the same thing over and over, but please do not solve the problem by pushing half of those players down into my tier I am concerned these missions are simply going to spread the "unfun" out rather than keeping it localized at the top, which means a broader swathe of people will experience it, which means more people will consider quitting/not returning/waiting the storm out rather than playing. I am assuming that the people who already bring those 2+ rerollable lists are going to continue to do so (which seems a fair assumption because they are neither penalized nor impeded in any way and the lists still remain quite good). I am also assuming that people who already bring less competitive lists will continue to do so (Sisters 4 Lyfe). I am predicting all these missions will accomplish is enable more list flexibility for the people who will already show up to events at the cost of those who are more on the fence.

Sure I would love a chance to win, but certainly not at the expense of having to play Jetstar or Screamerstar more than once in an event. The mechanics of the lists are not fun, more-so than the fact that they are challenging to beat. Gunlines and Serpent Spam are not different than leafblower guard and GK lists of old - I definitely may lose but at least it can be a fun game.



Editing for summation and clairty:
Serpent Spam, Gunlines, FMC, and anything else I am leaving out, are challenging lists that can be fun to play against - I am not concerned about a resurgence of these lists at all. 2+ rerollable save lists are almost certainly never fun to play against. Asymmetric missions neither solve the problem that 2+ rerollable saves are not fun to play against, nor I do not see how they will reduce the presence of those lists.

I think you're sharing a lot of valid concerns, but I'm not sure they'll match the actual "in-process" results.

Let me just use Jetstar and this mission as an example.
First, while you or even I may not find it fun to play against (and I want you to have fun at any event you go to), it is in my opinion fundamentally wrong for a TO to outlaw someone's investments based upon a feeling of "that's not fun." The question should only be ... is that FAIR? If it's fair, it steps into a dangerous realm to directly and intentionally harm the fun of people by saying "you can't bring that because some of your opponents may not find it fun to play you." We the internet have a bad habit of ignoring the fun of the "targets" while bemoaning our own good times. I think it's important for ANYONE to make sure they're understanding that in an open-attendance environment there are all kinds of factors that could infringe upon your enjoyment if you base "fun" upon the actions and choices of others. Personal responsibility and all that.

It similarly can be argued that a bunch of super fast 2+ re-rolling units are not "Fair," and thus you have us coming up with a way that levels the playing field without directly targeting those using the powerful units. We're seeing some accomplishment of this already.

That said, I understand that you're personally sharing a concern about even attending (which of course as a TO makes me a little sad-faced and certainly garners my attention) b/c you don't believe it's possible to have fun playing against a Jetstar no matter how you approach the game mentally/emotionally, and no matter how your opponent behaves while playing it. Understood.

So let's look at the mission and the realities of a tournament environment. First off, we're seeing already in playtest and feedback that jet/screamerstar is not plowing people over in this mission; in fact, they're losing to fairly typical take all comers and in some cases fluffy builds more often than not, b/c they are not yet adjusted at all for an environment where they have to have a lot more valuable troops and not so much gribbly deathstar if they want to try and "guarantee wins." More importantly, they're finding they can't simply guarantee wins, no matter how they build ... they have to play better.

Intent-wise and so-far accomplishment-wise, the mission framework changes fighting jet/screamerstar from "this isn't going to be fun, I can't win without having a super powered army of my own" to "this will be fine, they have a super unit but there are multiple ways I can win this game and feel in it no matter what my army looks like by the END of the game." I would encourage your own playtesting to help verify that it shifts the bar for in-game determinants of "Fun" and also chance to win.

As players get into this, some don't adjust at all but some do. That all said, good players will perform well regardless, and less good players will perform ... less well regardless. BUT you may find what constitutes a fun game shifts. This is sort of the heart and soul of the point here. Playing against jet/screamerstar is demoralizing b/c no matter what many armies try to do to them, they're eventually going to get broken apart by the power-units and thus lose the game by 5+ no matter what they do. By shifting to these more asymmetrical and durin-game approaches, that bar shifts.

I would simply encourage giving it more of a shot, playtesting some, etc.; I think you're halfway there on the logic - it's true that someone who is only average at the game and is just blindly walking into the tournament environment with a copy-pasted net list of screamers or jetbikes might find himself losing more than he expected, but those players were even at NOVA2013 and did not do all that well, yielding their presence throughout the field (especially screamer stars). At that point, you might think (and are thinking, by your commentary) "well now even more of them will be down where I think I'll be!" I think that's possibly true. Where the argument you're putting forth comes into more question for me as someone who has to evaluate it toward attendee happiness ... is what happens then? I think so far in playtest from a variety of sources including many more "average" or "take all comers" or "I don't want to have to think ahead that much just to have fun at a tournament" players we're seeing the games actually are more fun after all. They're more fun because players are going from a game that was "spend all game being able to do nothing meaningful, can't score any points, can't advance the cause to winning, and can't make it to turn 5 to even try to win with enough left alive" and thus felt utterly pointless and non-participatory for one player ... to games that are "spend all game doing things and advancing the cause of a win while understanding that my opponent has a scary unit that's going to try to stop me." It by nature changes super deathstar builds from ones that put the OPPONENT on the back foot to ones that by nature put themselves on the back foot. Now instead of being the hammer by which the game is auto-win against all but a small # of counters, they are becoming a tool to try and prevent losses. It's a fundamental change to the nature of how the games play, and IMO a good one.

As far as mission variety, I wouldn't worry there. I think any one person (you and me both in this case) will struggle to think through all the possible nuances and approaches to mission variety required for a venture of this sort. That's why we have an ever-increasing # of really smart people on the google docs group coming up with missions and then vetting their concepts through intense commentary. I think I received several new mission draft submissions just over the weekend (That I now have to clean up and get posted).

I REALLY appreciate your feedback, and I don't want to sound argumentative. I understand *I think* where it's coming from. It's a matter of taking that feedback and analyzing it, and that's what I'm trying to do. I don't have any intent at least personally to use missions that are going to yield a net negative for the field at large, and it's the AVERAGE attendee I care most about. Intensely committed players will do well regardless through preparation, but I want the type of list that does well to be a much broader range of list, instead of getting into a situation where only a few narrow-slit list types do so much better than the rest that we have to consider comp, bans and rules changes to re-insert variety to the field. Judging by the # of TOs and gamers joining the participant playtest and mission design group, I gather that's a hope reflected by a fairly large % of those interested in the subject to begin with.


PS - A note on mission complexity; at least in the case of the first mission, it's actually measurably less complex than most of 2013's NOVA Open missions, and many of the other GT and TT/etc. missions I saw while attending AdeptiCon and others. I think the CLARITY with which a mission is described in the packet (something I think I personally dropped the ball with on a few NOVA missions this year) is more important than the complexity, but in the case of the first fully-published test mission here, you see a Primary that goes one of two ways, and a Secondary that keeps pretty close to the book secondaries, and that's it. There's no Tertiary, and the Primary/Secondaries are pretty familiar - objectives, book secondaries, fin. Give it a shot!

I'm sending out the mission to players in my region, as I have an interest in using these missions for my Tournament next summer, so I should hopefully have some play test feedback over the Christmas period.

Mike, thanks for taking the time and responding. I knew your stance about not banning/limiting things for the sake of fairness equality ahead of time, but I see what you are saying about the fundamental tempo shift that can result from these sorts of missions (specifically making the game more fun by reducing the nihilistic feelings I associate with seeing a 2+star across the board).

Your focus on the "average attendee" is why I bothered to speak up in the first place, and again, my thanks for addressing (and putting up with) my soapbox issues

I do still have some concerns about the number of viable asymmetric missions the community can generate, but I definitely see their value, so my fingers are crossed on that. This first mission is almost the perfect counter to the current state of the game, so it certainly exemplifies the intended purpose. I am curious if missions 2 through 6 (8? 12?) will be able to as well. However, I will put on my optimistic hat and try to provide some actual mission feedback or brainstorming, assuming I can tear my FLGS away from its current Fantasy kick I am particularly curious how seers vs daemons fare under this setup, so I will need to dust off baron and my jetbikes and try to convince someone that actually asking them to play screamerstar is not in any way a trap.

Thanks again, I look forward to seeing where all this ends up.

Question regarding First Blood vs. Escalated First Blood:

Player A chooses Escalated First Blood.

Player B chooses something else, say Escalated Line-breaker.

If Player A destroys the first enemy unit of the game, does that prevent Player B from ever getting "normal" First Blood even though Play A also wouldn't score "normal" First Blood?

The way that I read it, what your opponent chooses for secondaries has no effect on your scoring. Player B would get 0-4 points for their escalated Line-Breaker, and have a chance to gain 2 points if they fill the normal criteria for First Blood and Slay the Warlord. If Player A gets the first kill, even though they chose escalated First Blood, Player B would not qualify for those 2 points.

The secondaries don't directly affect each other, just as in the rulebook. First Blood is still First Blood in that it can be scored by someone vying for it even if their opponent escalated First Blood. They'd still need to procure the first kill, however.

I recently played this mission with standard PRI and SEC scoring criteria. Both my opponent and I had a great game and thought it made for more dynamic game play. Fixed objectives with one being placed by each player is brilliant, also simply making slay/line/warlord 2 points made a world of difference in game play. Bravo.

quiestdeus wrote:

I am curious if missions 2 through 6 (8? 12?) will be able to as well.

You don't actually need that many asymmetric missions. The rulebook basically only has 4 missions.

Crusade, Big Guns, and the Scouring are just variations of one another. The same sort of variations on the test mission (with different numbers of objectives, different placement, scoring heavy/fast) will provide as much or more variation than those 3 book missions do.

For the other three missions, you just have to figure out why the deathstar/top meta builds are so good and make mission conditions that reward something else. Here are a few examples I thought of with very little effort.

Relic – The top meta builds are so good because they can board control or blast the enemy away from the only spot on the table that matters then sneak in late with squishy super-fast troops. So the inverse of this mission needs something that brings play to other areas of the board and motivates people to bring troops out in the early/mid game. I think something like a king of the hill/first to claim set up would pair nicely. For instance place two more objective markers on the centerline halfway between the relic and each short board edge. The first player to control both the outer objective markers at the start of their turn wins the alt objective. Make the alt X points and holding the relic X pts. They have similar feels but reward different things, and present the super violent/weak squishy troop armies with problems that the book missions simply do not.

Kill Points – Top meta armies win because they have minimal points invested in squishy units that hide and rely on overpowered underpriced super violent Frankenstein concoctions to rack up kill points on the opponent. So the inverse would be something that motivates a player to bring out their squishy units/and or play more conservatively with their deathstar units. A couple ideas: 1) Marked for death – you pick an enemy unit and achieve the alt objective if you destroy it. 2) You add an objective farming component to stress the heavy meta army's tendency to hide the weak squishy troop units just like the test mission. 3) Do modified/halved kill points – you achieve the objective if you destroy half the army's starting number of kill points. 4) Bring back old school table quarters, possibly with an early/mid game farming component.

Emperors Will – The heavy meta armies have an unassailable castle of shooting which will blow you off your objective, or an un-killable Frankenstein deathstar that they ram down your throat that you can’t stop or get past, and as always it all comes with a fair share of late game super fast and squishy contesters. So we need to bring play to the early/mid game and to more parts of the board. Normal objectives pairs nicely. Objective farming pairs nicely. Marker for death pairs nicely. Anything to get out of the super linear point A attacks point B dynamic that the heavy meta armies are so good at. I also think a plant the flag style objective might be good for this. Set up two additional markers that have to be away from the EW objectives, if the opponent ever has a scoring unit on the enemies PtF objective at the start of their turn they achieve the alt object. It forces someone to defend two castles, still has an emperors will type feel, yet rewards troop aggression in the early game. So winning emperors will would be X points, planting the flag would be X points.

So in less than an hour I wrote up ideas that would give a TO a full suite of alternate objectives to pair with the book missions. To be sure they need refinement, but this is definitely something that can be done.

So what you are saying Artfcllyflvrd is that the top builds all rely on minimum sized squishy troops to win the game at the end.

That has been a favorite tactic for many editions now, but two things have changed in 6th.

1. Some of these min sized squishy scoring units can cover a much larger area in one turn on the move and reach objectives from unheard of distances.

2. The shooting power of some armies has hit an all time high. A level which other armies can not compete with.

There will probably never be one mission that equally favors more armies than not... However this type of new mission format gives more options and I think it will probably keep evolving. More options seems to be the right direction towards leveling the playing field.

DarthDiggler wrote:
So what you are saying Artfcllyflvrd is that the top builds all rely on minimum sized squishy troops to win the game at the end.

That has been a favorite tactic for many editions now, but two things have changed in 6th.

1. Some of these min sized squishy scoring units can cover a much larger area in one turn on the move and reach objectives from unheard of distances.

2. The shooting power of some armies has hit an all time high. A level which other armies can not compete with.

No one is disagreeing with that. In fact, I agree with it 100%. But that IS the problem. The heavy meta armies have now become so good at the maximum violence/minimum scoring dynamic that other armies can't compete in book missions (which pretty much all reward the maximum violence late game objective grap). If you want to give other armies options, you need to bring win conditions to the early/mid part of the game. These objectives (largely taken from other game systems) do that.

Objective Farming
Marker for Death/Single Unit Elimination
First to Claim/Hold

 ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:

DarthDiggler wrote:
So what you are saying Artfcllyflvrd is that the top builds all rely on minimum sized squishy troops to win the game at the end.

That has been a favorite tactic for many editions now, but two things have changed in 6th.

1. Some of these min sized squishy scoring units can cover a much larger area in one turn on the move and reach objectives from unheard of distances.

2. The shooting power of some armies has hit an all time high. A level which other armies can not compete with.

No one is disagreeing with that. In fact, I agree with it 100%. But that IS the problem. The heavy meta armies have now become so good at the maximum violence/minimum scoring dynamic that other armies can't compete in book missions (which pretty much all reward the maximum violence late game objective grap). If you want to give other armies options, you need to bring win conditions to the early/mid part of the game. These objectives (largely taken from other game systems) do that.

Objective Farming
Marker for Death/Single Unit Elimination
First to Claim/Hold

I agree with this and would add another factor. The maximum violence/minimum scoring dynamic is enhanced by tourney scenarios which try to limit the randomness factor of the main rules by modifying the core rulebook. Random elements such as mysterious terrain and mysterious objectives, among others, throw a monkey wrench into the plans of extremely refined army lists. If their is no fat to burn, then a random event can throw those lists for a loop. In some ways they might not be as able to recover as a list with more 'fat'.

Of course the cries have been heard and most TO's have eliminated or severely cutback on the random factor of the core rulebook. Streamlined lists of minimum scoring do not have to fear a random event hurting their weakened troops. Like an objective blowing up.

The Warpstorm table represents the ultimate random events in a game. It might be a reason Daemons are such a wildcard and can beat any list at any time.

Whats wrong with Stronghold Assault, and especially Void Shields which I've seen hated on a bit ITT?

From my experience, they help assault lists, give interesting tactical options for static shooty or fast lists, they help mitigate first turn gunline alpha strike stuff, and turn first blood into an actual contest rather than just "who went first?"

Just curious as to why they, and the rest of stronghold assault, are seen as negative. It just seems to me like this excellent supplement has just been swept up in the tide of hatred towards Escalation and not given a fair chance.

 Dakkamite wrote:
Whats wrong with Stronghold Assault, and especially Void Shields which I've seen hated on a bit ITT?

From my experience, they help assault lists, give interesting tactical options for static shooty or fast lists, they help mitigate first turn gunline alpha strike stuff, and turn first blood into an actual contest rather than just "who went first?"

Just curious as to why they, and the rest of stronghold assault, are seen as negative. It just seems to me like this excellent supplement has just been swept up in the tide of hatred towards Escalation and not given a fair chance.

So it's a little off topic, but Stronghold Assault is "bad" for 5 major reasons.

1. The rules for the void shield generator (which everyone and their brother will be taking) are woefully incomplete. There is no way to play that model without extensive house ruling.
2. A number of entries have no models or dimensions. So restricting the size of a number of fortifications to reasonable limits would require extensive house ruling.
3. Fortification networks are logistically hard for tournaments that have preset terrain. The tournament would either need to go to player placed terrain (which is very hard in a tournament setting) or house rule the fortification placement rules.
4. The idea of an AV 15 building freaks people out.
5. S D weapons are bananas, and unfun for attendees at all levels of competition.

On top of that, the whole "void shields weaken the alpha strike" and "void shields help assault armies" are red herrings. That's not really how it works in reality. 300pts for what amounts to 3 chimeras is not a sound strategy to counter act the alpha strike. Similarly, assault armies are now down 300pts that they can't use to overload assault threats in turns 2 & 3. And in those turns when you need to overload assault threats you're way past your own shields. And the most violent shooting for Eldar and Tau occurs within 20" or so, once you're well past your shields.

The supplement as a whole does nothing to balance the game (if anything, it makes things worse) but does present a giant number of problems for TOs.

 ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:

 Dakkamite wrote:
Whats wrong with Stronghold Assault, and especially Void Shields which I've seen hated on a bit ITT?

From my experience, they help assault lists, give interesting tactical options for static shooty or fast lists, they help mitigate first turn gunline alpha strike stuff, and turn first blood into an actual contest rather than just "who went first?"

Just curious as to why they, and the rest of stronghold assault, are seen as negative. It just seems to me like this excellent supplement has just been swept up in the tide of hatred towards Escalation and not given a fair chance.

The supplement as a whole does nothing to balance the game (if anything, it makes things worse) but does present a giant number of problems for TOs.

My GK Henchmen think x2 Vengeance Weapon Batteries balance a Hell Turkey just fine thank you.

DarthDiggler wrote:

 ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:

DarthDiggler wrote:
So what you are saying Artfcllyflvrd is that the top builds all rely on minimum sized squishy troops to win the game at the end.

That has been a favorite tactic for many editions now, but two things have changed in 6th.

1. Some of these min sized squishy scoring units can cover a much larger area in one turn on the move and reach objectives from unheard of distances.

2. The shooting power of some armies has hit an all time high. A level which other armies can not compete with.

No one is disagreeing with that. In fact, I agree with it 100%. But that IS the problem. The heavy meta armies have now become so good at the maximum violence/minimum scoring dynamic that other armies can't compete in book missions (which pretty much all reward the maximum violence late game objective grap). If you want to give other armies options, you need to bring win conditions to the early/mid part of the game. These objectives (largely taken from other game systems) do that.

Objective Farming
Marker for Death/Single Unit Elimination
First to Claim/Hold

I agree with this and would add another factor. The maximum violence/minimum scoring dynamic is enhanced by tourney scenarios which try to limit the randomness factor of the main rules by modifying the core rulebook. Random elements such as mysterious terrain and mysterious objectives, among others, throw a monkey wrench into the plans of extremely refined army lists. If their is no fat to burn, then a random event can throw those lists for a loop. In some ways they might not be as able to recover as a list with more 'fat'.

Of course the cries have been heard and most TO's have eliminated or severely cutback on the random factor of the core rulebook. Streamlined lists of minimum scoring do not have to fear a random event hurting their weakened troops. Like an objective blowing up.

The Warpstorm table represents the ultimate random events in a game. It might be a reason Daemons are such a wildcard and can beat any list at any time.

FWIW it's entirely possible to control and/or contest an objective that's Sabotaged w/out ever being vulnerable to the explosion, since the template is 2.5" radius and the control/contest area's radius is 3" in a pre-measuring game. Regardless, I thought most events were using Mysterious Objectives these days? I know NOVA does, and at least think AdeptiCon does (or am I misremembering from last year? That whole GT day is hazy haha).