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.
2014/12/12 20:38:06
Subject: Re:1850 Competitive - Jy2's Pentyrant Tyranids vs Eldar w/Tyrannic War Veterans (Completed)
Personally I dont think Maelstrom will ever be perfect. This is how I think it should be done:
4 Objectives random placement.
Turn 1. No pts possible
Turn 2. 1pt possible for ea of the following: killing a unit. Controlling more obj than your opponent. Acheiving lb while not allowing lb.
And continue with that till game end.
Secondaries are
First Turn blood. Kill a unit first turn, both armies are able to achieve.
Linebreaker.
Marked for death. Pick a unit or char n kill it.
Then the secondary is who controls more obj at games end.
2014/12/12 20:55:42
Subject: 1850 Competitive - Jy2's Pentyrant Tyranids vs Eldar w/Tyrannic War Veterans (Completed)
One good thing is that you can use the BAO only as a foundation and then build upon that. TO's can just use the BAO as a basis and modify it from there. Just make sure you do a lot of playtesting for balance reasons and to fine-tune the scenarios.
jy2 wrote: With regards to placing objectives in the center, that is a very unbalanced scenario. First of all, how will you play missions such as the Scouring (with 6 objectives) or Emperor's Will? Secondly, objectives in NML's will create a huge imbalance as it will greatly benefit the more aggressive armies (such as MTO armies). As if deathstars, daemon summoning armies, TWC space wolves or MTO tyranids need such an advantage. Board control armies will have an inherent advantage in such a case.
I know you want to discourage people playing a static gunline type of armies, but that is not the way to do it.
Important to note, I'm only suggesting this for Maelstrom objectives. Not Eternal War Objectives. Most of the BAO missions only have 2 of them (or 4, but 2 are duplicates, which I like very much). Board control armies should have an advantage in Maelstrom to make up for their disadvantage in Eternal War.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Reecius wrote: Mission design is hugely important, I agree. That is why we play-test ours to death.
It's funny, the number 1 complaint about the way we score our Maelstrom missions is scoring at the bottom of the turn and the stated reason is the perception that the player going second has the advantage when in reality, our data shows that the player going first wins 4% more of the time.
That said, an only 4% varience is pretty awesome. It means you have a roughly equal chance of victory with our missions going first or second.
Having Maelstrom as primary is not a bad idea, but, again in our format Primary is 4pts, secondary is 3pts. They are really close in value (intentionally) so swapping them in all likelihood won't dramatically change the lists we see. For example, the Flyrant list would probably still obliterate most folks regardless.
I like Data too. Database analysis is my job. What does your data show about the percentage of wins where the player won the secondary, but not the primary? Because my data shows that 92.5% of winners won the primary in my little RTT. Its a much smaller sample size. 18 players for a total of 27 games, but only 2 of them were decided based on secondary, and those 2 were both a draw on primary.
How about first blood. 85.2% of players who got first blood won their games in my little RTT. Just 4 games went to the player who lost 1st blood. Lists built for Eternal War and 1st Blood utterly dominated.
I'm not comfortable with those numbers. Not comfortable at all. Advantages of going 1st like 1st blood might offset, the advantages of going second and being able to score or deny objectives, but offsetting isn't fun, and fun is far more important.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/12 22:37:09
2014/12/13 05:59:03
Subject: 1850 Competitive - Jy2's Pentyrant Tyranids vs Eldar w/Tyrannic War Veterans (Completed)
Reecius wrote: Mission design is hugely important, I agree. That is why we play-test ours to death.
It's funny, the number 1 complaint about the way we score our Maelstrom missions is scoring at the bottom of the turn and the stated reason is the perception that the player going second has the advantage when in reality, our data shows that the player going first wins 4% more of the time.
That said, an only 4% varience is pretty awesome. It means you have a roughly equal chance of victory with our missions going first or second.
Having Maelstrom as primary is not a bad idea, but, again in our format Primary is 4pts, secondary is 3pts. They are really close in value (intentionally) so swapping them in all likelihood won't dramatically change the lists we see. For example, the Flyrant list would probably still obliterate most folks regardless.
@Red Corsair
What would you suggest as changes? Coming up with fair options is actually quite a challenge. You point out the inequities of the book tertiary missions, and I agree with a lot of them, but try and write some that are universally fair. You can't. In a game where all the armies are intentionally different, a static win condition will impact them all differently and therefore be more or less fair depending on the army played. It's the price we pay for variety in the game.
Plus, we try to stay as close to the book as possible for a few reasons.
Folks don't have to think about it. Overly complex missions that alternate from the book confuse players. While they are trying to focus on playing the game, they forget new or wonky alternate objectives as they are used to FB, StW and LB. Those sort of fade into the background of the mind as you have done it so many times. Are they perfectly balanced? No, but they are second nature.
IMO, the best thing we could do to make the game more fair would be to drop the IGO/UGO format and implement alternate unit activation. It is inherently more fair. However, in a game as complex as 40k, with as many units as we use, that would be tough to do.
Table quarters as a tertiary would be fair and not that difficult to figure out. It's really not that hard, especially when other tournaments have created several. Though I don't think they are all great, many like last laugh are no more imbalanced then first blood. They don't all need to be perfect as long as there is a list to choose from so its harder for players to tailor to. The current three are all beneficial to deathstars, thats kind of lame as a tertiary. Adding even 2 to 3 more that benefit table control evens things out.
I also disagree that players will be confused by added tertiaries, I mean you guys have had to do videos explaining your mission format and told people to practice them so they are familiar with the way its scored. Adding a few more tertiary options isn't going to confuse anyone, and if they don't like them the normal three options are there.
In regards to the way 40k plays, I agree with you 100% which is also why I am not expecting or blaming you for the inequities of 40k. Your a smart guy and you do a stand up job! I love problem solving and because you guys format is a great package, it's honestly the best starting point. I don't think there will ever be a perfect mission package but the moment we stop striving to improve is the moment we should give up. Your missions are the same since the BAO, surely there are improvements that can be made is all I am suggesting.
In regard to the 4% variation, I don't know how you determined that so it's kind of a pointless statistic honestly. I mean, how do you account for the difference in codex creep or even generalship? 40k has way to many variables to suggest your method for scoring maelstrom is accounting for it. That doesn't mean scouring maelstrom by player turn would be worse. It would be interesting to poll your attendees on the missions and list some possible changes. Do it as an exit poll at the very least.
Again I don't want to sound like a backseat driver, it is just a damned shame the missions haven't evolved since last.
Can I inquire as to why you guys decided to score the maelstrom missions at the bottom of the turn?
It would be interesting to poll your attendees on the missions and list some possible changes. Do it as an exit poll at the very least.
Again I don't want to sound like a backseat driver, it is just a damned shame the missions haven't evolved since last.
Can I inquire as to why you guys decided to score the maelstrom missions at the bottom of the turn?
Corsair, I've got to ask you....why? What is your justification for them to change their mission format? Why is it a "damned shame" that the missions haven't evolved? Now why should they change a highly successful format so that it fits more idealistically into how you feel the tournament should be?
Their attendance is off the charts. Completely sold out and with a waiting list.
Their BAO format is borrowed and duplicated by a lot of tournaments.
Their customers aren't complaining. As a matter of fact, most of them like their format.
These guys are super-busy, both with retail work as well as spending time on all the different forums, social media and their own blog/website online. Why add extra work to their already busy workload when it isn't really necessary?
You can't please everyone. The moment you make changes, people will complain about something else. Simple = better. The more you add to your format, the more people will gripe about it. Why do you want to create all that extra work? Playtesting, defending your changes to naysayers, then making those changes, more playtesting and then defending your changes again?
I can see that changes may be necessary if attendance is down and sales are sagging. That is when you really need to look into your format and consider making changes. But for now, I really don't see the justification to do so.
Instead of asking them to make changes, I think it would be more productive - if you are really serious about wanting them to change - to do either of these 2 things:
1. Write up how you think their formats should change and why it would be better for them to do so. Be as detailed with it as possible, including all the changes you think they should incorporate into their format (and in detail!) and then submit it to them.
2. Open up an open forum on this or another gaming forum site. You can title it something like "How to improve on the BAO format" or something like that. Then direct their attention to it. That is almost like an open petition. If they see that a lot of people wanting changes in their format, then they are more likely to do something about it. However, if not a lot of people are posting there, then sorry my friend, you are one of the true minorities who feel that there should be any changes to the BAO format.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/13 08:52:30
Red Corsair wrote: In regard to the 4% variation, I don't know how you determined that so it's kind of a pointless statistic honestly. I mean, how do you account for the difference in codex creep or even generalship? 40k has way to many variables to suggest your method for scoring maelstrom is accounting for it. That doesn't mean scouring maelstrom by player turn would be worse. It would be interesting to poll your attendees on the missions and list some possible changes. Do it as an exit poll at the very least.
Again I don't want to sound like a backseat driver, it is just a damned shame the missions haven't evolved since last.
Can I inquire as to why you guys decided to score the maelstrom missions at the bottom of the turn?
He is saying that if players scored on the player turn instead of the game turn, then the advantage of going 1st would be too significant. The fact that there is a 4% variance means that there are roughly as many advantages to going first as there are to going second. It has nothing to do with generalship or codex creep, because the same armies went both 1st and 2nd, and thus had a chance to alter the statistics on both sides. The only skew to the data would be the small percentage of armies that had a bonus to seize the initiative.
They accomplished this by giving advantages to going first (First Blood, Alpha Striking), and advantages to going 2nd (Objective scoring).
There is an argument to be made that the statistics have questionable value because of the self-selecting generals and armies that attend. For instance, my local meta runs mainly Maelstrom missions. We have many players who have crafted a very powerful list that is excellent at Maelstrom missions. But, the vast majority of those players changed up their lists for our BAO format tournament. They switched from a board control, tactically flexible list to either gunline, deathstar, or the type of list that I was previously grouping in with gunline, but doesn't fit that definition because it is highly mobile. Lists that were more based on pregame strategy, and tended to be less tactically flexible. Overall, I think this is mainly an asterisk on the variance, and does basically nothing to discredit it.
I prefer a tactically fluid game where superior gameplay overcomes bad matchups and pregame strategy. Maelstrom lends itself to this. Eternal War, First Blood, Objectives in deployment zones, and end of game turn scoring, and even warlord all trend toward a game where a greater emphasis is placed on pregame strategy, and a lesser emphasis on Tactical gameplay. I don't like this because if I travel 1,000 miles to attend an event, I want my player skill to matter more than my matchups. Missions alone cannot fix this, but they can definitely improve it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jy2 wrote: Corsair, I've got to ask you....why? What is your justification for them to change their mission format? Why is it a "damned shame" that the missions haven't evolved? Now why should they change a highly successful format so that it fits more idealistically into how you feel the tournament should be?
...
Interesting point. One that I often take for granted. From a business perspective, the reasoning is pretty weak. Basically, they are the market leader (40k Tournaments), and so they need to continue innovating to maintain their competitive edge. But as you say, they are well loved, and not in danger of losing ground any time soon.
However, from a wider 40k perspective, there are great reasons to change it up. BAO has awesome missions. Some of the best out there. But they fall into the category of Rock-Paper-40k too much. Matchups are destiny, and not because of the players, but because of the lists. It is my opinion that the easiest way to improve this is with a fix to the FOC. Some subtle changes like the 2+ reroll or the potential invis nerf help as well, but missions can help too. It is our desire for a game that is meaningfully competitive based on player skill and not pre-game list building, and lucky match-ups. You simply can't do that with so much emphasis on one time non-selective preset scoring opportunities. Furthermore, missions based on non-selective preset scoring opportunities become less fun the more you play them. More dynamic missions have more longevity, and a better fun factor. I can play one list vs an opponents list 3 times without altering either lists in a specific BAO mission, and after that there is generally no more fun to be had unless you change the mission, or the lists. I can play a Maelstrom mission with the same 2 lists many, many times and still have fun. Because FLG represents innovators, the best hope of players like me for the future of 40k is that we find a way to introduce more dynamism into their missions, and by doing so start to heal the gap between competitive players, and non-competitive players. So suffice to say, I believe that the missions can be made both more competitive and more fun. As Awesome as they are, there is still room for improvement. Maybe that improvement will start at my little RTTs or at some other GT, but if I had to place a bet, it would be that improvement comes out of the FLG group.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/13 09:52:06
2014/12/13 15:57:33
Subject: 1850 Competitive - Jy2's Pentyrant Tyranids vs Eldar w/Tyrannic War Veterans (Completed)
Hive Fleet Detachment is a 40k approved Detachment from a tyranid supplement (Leviathan). Both are just as legal as the formations and detachments in any other codex or supplement. What it comes down to these days is what TO's allow and ban in their events -- GW has taken a stance in 7th that everything is prettymuch "legal play".
The Adamantine Lance is a formation from the Sanctus Reach campaign supplement ('The Red Waaagh'). The Hive Fleet detachment is from the Shield of Baal campaign supplement, which, while containing formations for Tyranid, is not a codex supplement. So while, yes, they are approved, they are not sourced from codex supplements, codex formations, or codex detachments. They are sourced from campaign supplements.
This provides a clear distinction that can be used (whether or not it should is another discussion) to differentiate between what is, and is not allowed in tournament play.
2014/12/13 16:29:09
Subject: 1850 Competitive - Jy2's Pentyrant Tyranids vs Eldar w/Tyrannic War Veterans (Completed)
It would be interesting to poll your attendees on the missions and list some possible changes. Do it as an exit poll at the very least.
Again I don't want to sound like a backseat driver, it is just a damned shame the missions haven't evolved since last.
Can I inquire as to why you guys decided to score the maelstrom missions at the bottom of the turn?
Corsair, I've got to ask you....why? What is your justification for them to change their mission format? Why is it a "damned shame" that the missions haven't evolved? Now why should they change a highly successful format so that it fits more idealistically into how you feel the tournament should be?
Their attendance is off the charts. Completely sold out and with a waiting list.
Their BAO format is borrowed and duplicated by a lot of tournaments.
Their customers aren't complaining. As a matter of fact, most of them like their format.
These guys are super-busy, both with retail work as well as spending time on all the different forums, social media and their own blog/website online. Why add extra work to their already busy workload when it isn't really necessary?
You can't please everyone. The moment you make changes, people will complain about something else. Simple = better. The more you add to your format, the more people will gripe about it. Why do you want to create all that extra work? Playtesting, defending your changes to naysayers, then making those changes, more playtesting and then defending your changes again?
I can see that changes may be necessary if attendance is down and sales are sagging. That is when you really need to look into your format and consider making changes. But for now, I really don't see the justification to do so.
Instead of asking them to make changes, I think it would be more productive - if you are really serious about wanting them to change - to do either of these 2 things:
1. Write up how you think their formats should change and why it would be better for them to do so. Be as detailed with it as possible, including all the changes you think they should incorporate into their format (and in detail!) and then submit it to them.
2. Open up an open forum on this or another gaming forum site. You can title it something like "How to improve on the BAO format" or something like that. Then direct their attention to it. That is almost like an open petition. If they see that a lot of people wanting changes in their format, then they are more likely to do something about it. However, if not a lot of people are posting there, then sorry my friend, you are one of the true minorities who feel that there should be any changes to the BAO format.
I think your taking it the wrong way. I tried to spell out that I think they have the better format of the Bigger tournaments. That said, it doesn't mean it can't be improved. You had suggestions yourself, so yea I feel it is a damned shame when something is close to the best it can be but stops.
Saying damned shame is a bit dramatic of me I admit, it happens when you accidentally drank that 2nd late and are up way past your bed time
The only main suggestions I had were alternating the primary and secondary and scoring maelstrom the way it is intended. Note, they changed the scoring to both players at the bottom and I am not sure why since tournaments are notorious for having time issues and giving an edge to the player going second. I still don't understand that one and when I ask for their reasoning it's not being mean I am genuinely baffled and want to understand.
Beyond that and even without those changes its a solid format.
However with that said, the only reason why I brought up the missions to begin with is because of the list you played in this thread. You sold it as nearly unbeatable and while I agree it is an annoying list it very much games the BAO format to reach that level. If your going to run a disclaimer and boast about a lists strengths you need to be prepared to have an open discussion as to why it is so strong. That means missions fall under the scrutiny first and foremost.
Their attendance is awesome and clearly they don't have to change a thing, your right on that note. That said, if you make a list that is almost unbeatable using their format then congratulations, you found the holes in the format and just proved it isn't tight anymore. There will always be strong armies but missions should serve to level the field as much as possible.
Hey, maybe we are both wrong though and you lose your first match
Sorry, I can joke because we both know it isn't likely I hope I didn't jinx you though or I will feel bad
PS: As for starting a thread, I actually have been tempted to in the past but I didn't want to step on Reece toes and open up a troll farm Any debate here should pertain to the why your list is as strong as it is, which again is why I even mentioned the BAO (your playing their missions)
Red Corsair wrote: In regard to the 4% variation, I don't know how you determined that so it's kind of a pointless statistic honestly. I mean, how do you account for the difference in codex creep or even generalship? 40k has way to many variables to suggest your method for scoring maelstrom is accounting for it. That doesn't mean scouring maelstrom by player turn would be worse. It would be interesting to poll your attendees on the missions and list some possible changes. Do it as an exit poll at the very least.
Again I don't want to sound like a backseat driver, it is just a damned shame the missions haven't evolved since last.
Can I inquire as to why you guys decided to score the maelstrom missions at the bottom of the turn?
He is saying that if players scored on the player turn instead of the game turn, then the advantage of going 1st would be too significant. The fact that there is a 4% variance means that there are roughly as many advantages to going first as there are to going second. It has nothing to do with generalship or codex creep, because the same armies went both 1st and 2nd, and thus had a chance to alter the statistics on both sides. The only skew to the data would be the small percentage of armies that had a bonus to seize the initiative.
They accomplished this by giving advantages to going first (First Blood, Alpha Striking), and advantages to going 2nd (Objective scoring).
There is an argument to be made that the statistics have questionable value because of the self-selecting generals and armies that attend. For instance, my local meta runs mainly Maelstrom missions. We have many players who have crafted a very powerful list that is excellent at Maelstrom missions. But, the vast majority of those players changed up their lists for our BAO format tournament. They switched from a board control, tactically flexible list to either gunline, deathstar, or the type of list that I was previously grouping in with gunline, but doesn't fit that definition because it is highly mobile. Lists that were more based on pregame strategy, and tended to be less tactically flexible. Overall, I think this is mainly an asterisk on the variance, and does basically nothing to discredit it.
I prefer a tactically fluid game where superior gameplay overcomes bad matchups and pregame strategy. Maelstrom lends itself to this. Eternal War, First Blood, Objectives in deployment zones, and end of game turn scoring, and even warlord all trend toward a game where a greater emphasis is placed on pregame strategy, and a lesser emphasis on Tactical gameplay. I don't like this because if I travel 1,000 miles to attend an event, I want my player skill to matter more than my matchups. Missions alone cannot fix this, but they can definitely improve it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jy2 wrote: Corsair, I've got to ask you....why? What is your justification for them to change their mission format? Why is it a "damned shame" that the missions haven't evolved? Now why should they change a highly successful format so that it fits more idealistically into how you feel the tournament should be?
...
Interesting point. One that I often take for granted. From a business perspective, the reasoning is pretty weak. Basically, they are the market leader (40k Tournaments), and so they need to continue innovating to maintain their competitive edge. But as you say, they are well loved, and not in danger of losing ground any time soon.
However, from a wider 40k perspective, there are great reasons to change it up. BAO has awesome missions. Some of the best out there. But they fall into the category of Rock-Paper-40k too much. Matchups are destiny, and not because of the players, but because of the lists. It is my opinion that the easiest way to improve this is with a fix to the FOC. Some subtle changes like the 2+ reroll or the potential invis nerf help as well, but missions can help too. It is our desire for a game that is meaningfully competitive based on player skill and not pre-game list building, and lucky match-ups. You simply can't do that with so much emphasis on one time non-selective preset scoring opportunities. Furthermore, missions based on non-selective preset scoring opportunities become less fun the more you play them. More dynamic missions have more longevity, and a better fun factor. I can play one list vs an opponents list 3 times without altering either lists in a specific BAO mission, and after that there is generally no more fun to be had unless you change the mission, or the lists. I can play a Maelstrom mission with the same 2 lists many, many times and still have fun. Because FLG represents innovators, the best hope of players like me for the future of 40k is that we find a way to introduce more dynamism into their missions, and by doing so start to heal the gap between competitive players, and non-competitive players. So suffice to say, I believe that the missions can be made both more competitive and more fun. As Awesome as they are, there is still room for improvement. Maybe that improvement will start at my little RTTs or at some other GT, but if I had to place a bet, it would be that improvement comes out of the FLG group.
And this is what happens when you don't scroll the page before posting.
+1
You managed everything I wanted to present and more! Well said on all accounts.
No offense taken, i appreciate the feedback. Just to illustrate the point I was making earlier, you mentioned Table Quarters as a good Tertiary win condition. The issue is that that overlaps with any other board control objective such as Linebreaker or taking an objective. If you have an objective in a table quarter, which they all are, you are already "taking table quarters" so to speak. They overlap and provide no new tactical choices to make.
I point this out not to put you down, but to show you how hard it is to actually write win conditions that don't overlap with what is already being done. And, why make a change just to make a change? It confuses players and often, as in this case, actually make the game LESS tactically flexible.
It is quite the challenge to write good missions. We're always seeking to improve though and do appreciate the feedback.
And our missions have been the way they are since the BAO, which was in July, it hasn't been that long =) That said, we are open to new ideas.
@Tag8833
Yeah, it sounds like your sample set was skewed perhaps? And it is really hard to make missions that are fun and fair for the two extremes of MSU and Deathstar 40k. I agree with you 100% that the game should be predominantly player skill and luck, but, the game quite simply isn't written with balance in mind. We're constantly trying to make the game as fun, fair and open as possible but the core product isn't meant for that, so we're fighting the tide a bit. It simply will not ever be balanced, we just try to get as close as we can to the mark.
DCannon4Life wrote: The Adamantine Lance is a formation from the Sanctus Reach campaign supplement ('The Red Waaagh'). The Hive Fleet detachment is from the Shield of Baal campaign supplement, which, while containing formations for Tyranid, is not a codex supplement. So while, yes, they are approved, they are not sourced from codex supplements, codex formations, or codex detachments. They are sourced from campaign supplements.
This provides a clear distinction that can be used (whether or not it should is another discussion) to differentiate between what is, and is not allowed in tournament play.
This was true originally; however Adamantine Lance was re-released as a standalone Dataslate as well, so there's really no way to restrict it at this point outside of just singling it out specifically.
2014/12/15 04:39:34
Subject: 1850 Competitive - Jy2's Pentyrant Tyranids vs Eldar w/Tyrannic War Veterans (Completed)
Yeah, it sounds like your sample set was skewed perhaps? And it is really hard to make missions that are fun and fair for the two extremes of MSU and Deathstar 40k. I agree with you 100% that the game should be predominantly player skill and luck, but, the game quite simply isn't written with balance in mind. We're constantly trying to make the game as fun, fair and open as possible but the core product isn't meant for that, so we're fighting the tide a bit. It simply will not ever be balanced, we just try to get as close as we can to the mark.
Fair enough. I'm very gladdened to see that my data isn't representative. As I said the sample was crazy small, and 8 of our 18 players were in their first tourney, so I accept fully that a higher level of competition might have games decided more based on the secondary missions, and not so dependent on 1st Blood.
As for me. In my preparation for LVO, I'm working hard to construct a list that denies 1st blood, and wins the primary, even if the secondary is often going to be out of reach.
2014/12/16 01:23:17
Subject: 1850 Competitive - Jy2's Pentyrant Tyranids vs Eldar w/Tyrannic War Veterans (Completed)
Your list will do very well. Well, I suppose any list built to the missions is giving you an advantage in any system, but if you can deny Warlord, don't give FB easily and can reliably get LB, you obviously have a strong advantage. It's one of the reasons Eldar do so well in most mission formats that use the book as a foundation.
Red Corsair wrote: I think your taking it the wrong way. I tried to spell out that I think they have the better format of the Bigger tournaments. That said, it doesn't mean it can't be improved. You had suggestions yourself, so yea I feel it is a damned shame when something is close to the best it can be but stops.
Saying damned shame is a bit dramatic of me I admit, it happens when you accidentally drank that 2nd late and are up way past your bed time
The only main suggestions I had were alternating the primary and secondary and scoring maelstrom the way it is intended. Note, they changed the scoring to both players at the bottom and I am not sure why since tournaments are notorious for having time issues and giving an edge to the player going second. I still don't understand that one and when I ask for their reasoning it's not being mean I am genuinely baffled and want to understand.
Beyond that and even without those changes its a solid format.
However with that said, the only reason why I brought up the missions to begin with is because of the list you played in this thread. You sold it as nearly unbeatable and while I agree it is an annoying list it very much games the BAO format to reach that level. If your going to run a disclaimer and boast about a lists strengths you need to be prepared to have an open discussion as to why it is so strong. That means missions fall under the scrutiny first and foremost.
Their attendance is awesome and clearly they don't have to change a thing, your right on that note. That said, if you make a list that is almost unbeatable using their format then congratulations, you found the holes in the format and just proved it isn't tight anymore. There will always be strong armies but missions should serve to level the field as much as possible.
Hey, maybe we are both wrong though and you lose your first match
Sorry, I can joke because we both know it isn't likely I hope I didn't jinx you though or I will feel bad
PS: As for starting a thread, I actually have been tempted to in the past but I didn't want to step on Reece toes and open up a troll farm Any debate here should pertain to the why your list is as strong as it is, which again is why I even mentioned the BAO (your playing their missions)
I keep wondering why people think that this type of list is strong just because of the BAO format....that this type of list is so powerful because it games the BAO format?
WAKE UP PEOPLE! This list is good against any tournament format. It is designed as a Take-All-Comer's to handle most armies and in more mission scenarios.
You think flyrants can take objectives at the end of the game only in the BAO format? Guess what? Other than pure Maelstrom missions, all tournament formats have objectives that armies going 2nd can always do a last-turn objective-grab/contest with.
Concerned about KP's? This semi-MSU list has only got 13 KP's total that the opponent can grab, and 5 of them are hard to get. The rest of them are mainly reserve-based to deny you the chance to try to get them, at least initially.
You think this type of list cannot compete in Maelstrom objectives? To that, I say baloney. It can take Maelstrom objectives, and the flyrants will protect the MSU elements of the list by taking out the opponent's ability to grab Maelstrom objectives as well.
If you think that the BAO format can by improved upon, that's fine. But don't think that it is only the BAO that this type of list can do well against. It has all the tools to do well under almost any tournament format.
BTW, I never claimed that this list is unbeatable. What I claimed is that this type of list is meta-changing. If you don't bring the tools to be able to deal with it, then most likely you won't be able to beat it.
As for me. In my preparation for LVO, I'm working hard to construct a list that denies 1st blood, and wins the primary, even if the secondary is often going to be out of reach.
Sounds like you are going towards more of a denial list, you know, kind of like my Pentyrant army here.
There's a reason why my Tyranid armies have shifted away from tervigons+termagants, dakkafexes and other such units and into ripper swarms, lictors and mawlocs. That's also a reason why OrdoSean's list is also based off of reserves units (lictors, mawlocs, genestealers). We are running more of a denial and highly mobile list with the ideas of First Blood denial, positional flexibility and also Maelstrom objectives.
Reecius wrote: Your list will do very well. Well, I suppose any list built to the missions is giving you an advantage in any system, but if you can deny Warlord, don't give FB easily and can reliably get LB, you obviously have a strong advantage. It's one of the reasons Eldar do so well in most mission formats that use the book as a foundation.
As for me. In my preparation for LVO, I'm working hard to construct a list that denies 1st blood, and wins the primary, even if the secondary is often going to be out of reach.
Sounds like you are going towards more of a denial list, you know, kind of like my Pentyrant army here.
There's a reason why my Tyranid armies have shifted away from tervigons+termagants, dakkafexes and other such units and into ripper swarms, lictors and mawlocs. That's also a reason why OrdoSean's list is also based off of reserves units (lictors, mawlocs, genestealers). We are running more of a denial and highly mobile list with the ideas of First Blood denial, positional flexibility and also Maelstrom objectives.
11th Company missions favored MSU. Last years Adepticon missions favored Kill point denial. It is my experience that BAO missions favor First Blood, and last turn objective stealing. That may not be born out by more complete data, but that is what I'm focusing on.
Change of topic.
I recently took quite a beating from a couple of blobby armies when I was bringing my A game (Barbed heirodule + 3 flyrants). I'm more eager to see 5 Flyrant vs Mechdar + Wraithknights, but I'm curious what you instincts tell you if you ran 5 flyrants against one of these lists, because their durability surprised me. If it weren't for the heirodule in assault, I would have fared much worse.
The conscripts sat on the skyshield for a 4++. Azreal joined the small blob for a 4++, and the psychers were split between the blobs, but mainly focussed on giving the big blob with Yarrik a 4++ via Forewarning.
The game started off bad with them seizing on me and first blooding my warlord thanks to orders (twin linking, Monster Hunter, and Ignore cover) on the big blob. Then the Wyvrens took 3 wounds off the Malanthrope. But eventually the Heirodule stomped Azreal to death, and then shot the other blob off of a 3 point objective for a possible turn 5 win.
2 Tractor Kannons (2 Ammo Runts)
2 Tractor Kannons (2 Ammo Runts)
2 Tractor Kannons (2 Ammo Runts)
I got very lucky with terrain, and was able to pin one squad of Tractor Kannons, Kill 1 and hide from the others, but the pinned one still clipped a flyrant, and took him to the ground on terrain 10" away from the green tide on the turn it charged the Heirodule. Later the Deff Koptas grounded a flyrant, and the green tide ate it. On turn 5 I landed the flyrants in charge range, but scoring enough objectives to win, but game went on. Heirodule ended up killing about 45 orks in assault thanks to paroxysm.
It was only the heirodules Toughness 8 and stomps in assault that kept me in the running in those two games. With 5 Flyrants would you have enough fire power to perform better?
2014/12/17 00:03:20
Subject: 1850 Competitive - Jy2's Pentyrant Tyranids vs Eldar w/Tyrannic War Veterans (Completed)
I recently took quite a beating from a couple of blobby armies when I was bringing my A game (Barbed heirodule + 3 flyrants). I'm more eager to see 5 Flyrant vs Mechdar + Wraithknights, but I'm curious what you instincts tell you if you ran 5 flyrants against one of these lists, because their durability surprised me. If it weren't for the heirodule in assault, I would have fared much worse.
The conscripts sat on the skyshield for a 4++. Azreal joined the small blob for a 4++, and the psychers were split between the blobs, but mainly focussed on giving the big blob with Yarrik a 4++ via Forewarning.
The game started off bad with them seizing on me and first blooding my warlord thanks to orders (twin linking, Monster Hunter, and Ignore cover) on the big blob. Then the Wyvrens took 3 wounds off the Malanthrope. But eventually the Heirodule stomped Azreal to death, and then shot the other blob off of a 3 point objective for a possible turn 5 win.
This is in essence a deathstar army. Kill off all support units - wyverns, platoon command squads and any lone straggling units. Then focus on 1 blob at a time. I wouldn't worry too much about the conscripts. They are a static unit that just sits on an objective, just as your much cheaper rippers will sit on an objective. 3 flyrants might not have the firepower to do serious damage to the blob, but 5 will. 60 shots, 53 hits, 44 wounds, 22 dead guardsmen a turn even with 4++. The key is to kill off all the support units first, starting with the PCS and wyverns.
2 Tractor Kannons (2 Ammo Runts)
2 Tractor Kannons (2 Ammo Runts)
2 Tractor Kannons (2 Ammo Runts)
I got very lucky with terrain, and was able to pin one squad of Tractor Kannons, Kill 1 and hide from the others, but the pinned one still clipped a flyrant, and took him to the ground on terrain 10" away from the green tide on the turn it charged the Heirodule. Later the Deff Koptas grounded a flyrant, and the green tide ate it. On turn 5 I landed the flyrants in charge range, but scoring enough objectives to win, but game went on. Heirodule ended up killing about 45 orks in assault thanks to paroxysm.
It was only the heirodules Toughness 8 and stomps in assault that kept me in the running in those two games. With 5 Flyrants would you have enough fire power to perform better?
Kill off the tractor kannons first. Don't worry about the tide....it's a deathstar and a Pentyrant list can easily deal with deathstars. Psychic powers here will be your friend and you will have a lot of it. Low LD is how you take advantage of them. Tractor Kannons are especially low (LD5). Psychic Scream, the Horror and Paroxysm here are your friends. After you deal with the kannons, it is almost cruise control there thereon.
BTW, 5 flyrants firing at boyz (assuming only 6+ armor because flyrants can usually get to the boys in the open and if they bunch up in cover, then it's egrubs time):
60 shots, 53 hits, 44 wounds, 37 Wounds or 37 dead boys a turn out in the open.
I don't see problems against either of these lists with a Pentyrant build.
I recently took quite a beating from a couple of blobby armies when I was bringing my A game (Barbed heirodule + 3 flyrants). I'm more eager to see 5 Flyrant vs Mechdar + Wraithknights, but I'm curious what you instincts tell you if you ran 5 flyrants against one of these lists, because their durability surprised me. If it weren't for the heirodule in assault, I would have fared much worse.
The conscripts sat on the skyshield for a 4++. Azreal joined the small blob for a 4++, and the psychers were split between the blobs, but mainly focussed on giving the big blob with Yarrik a 4++ via Forewarning.
The game started off bad with them seizing on me and first blooding my warlord thanks to orders (twin linking, Monster Hunter, and Ignore cover) on the big blob. Then the Wyvrens took 3 wounds off the Malanthrope. But eventually the Heirodule stomped Azreal to death, and then shot the other blob off of a 3 point objective for a possible turn 5 win.
This is in essence a deathstar army. Kill off all support units - wyverns, platoon command squads and any lone straggling units. Then focus on 1 blob at a time. I wouldn't worry too much about the conscripts. They are a static unit that just sits on an objective, just as your much cheaper rippers will sit on an objective. 3 flyrants might not have the firepower to do serious damage to the blob, but 5 will. 60 shots, 53 hits, 44 wounds, 22 dead guardsmen a turn even with 4++. The key is to kill off all the support units first, starting with the PCS and wyverns.
The PCS were joined to the blobs. 3 Blobs, 3 Wyvrens, and 1 unit of scouts (in reserves). You've got to kill 2 blobs to have a shot at a win, because all 3 are OS, and the blobs have a chance to shoot back with TL Las Cannons, but your point is taken.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/17 14:57:44
2014/12/17 15:29:58
Subject: Re:1850 Competitive - Jy2's Pentyrant Tyranids vs Eldar w/Tyrannic War Veterans (Completed)
Then you got cheated. Platoon Command Squads can't blob up. Only the Infantry Squads have the ability to combine units.
A weirdly common mistake, but mostly among newer Guard players.
Edit: and while we're on the subject, I really hope you weren't letting him stack Orders. The way you phrased his usage of the big blob makes me worry that he was, but I assumed we were also dealing with Divination powers when you say TL, Ignores Cover, AND Monster Hunter. He is obviously limited to one order per unit.
Assuming we are talking about Perfect Timing and Prescience, those must have been some great Psychic phases for him. With Forewarning on the blob, that's 4 Warp Charge of powers in a list with only 4 natural WC against a list with 6 WC (or more).
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/12/17 15:40:28
2014/12/17 16:27:12
Subject: Re:1850 Competitive - Jy2's Pentyrant Tyranids vs Eldar w/Tyrannic War Veterans (Completed)
DJ3 wrote: Then you got cheated. Platoon Command Squads can't blob up. Only the Infantry Squads have the ability to combine units.
A weirdly common mistake, but mostly among newer Guard players.
Edit: and while we're on the subject, I really hope you weren't letting him stack Orders. The way you phrased his usage of the big blob makes me worry that he was, but I assumed we were also dealing with Divination powers when you say TL, Ignores Cover, AND Monster Hunter. He is obviously limited to one order per unit.
Assuming we are talking about Perfect Timing and Prescience, those must have been some great Psychic phases for him. With Forewarning on the blob, that's 4 Warp Charge of powers in a list with only 4 natural WC against a list with 6 WC (or more).
Nope. Order stacking. My fault. He was a non-guard player that I asked to play that list so that I could get a look. No order stacking + PCS not being allowed in the blob makes it a ton less threatening. Thank goodness, because it was F*ing scary how fast I lost my warlord. 1st Shooting attack of the game.
2014/12/17 17:11:56
Subject: Re:1850 Competitive - Jy2's Pentyrant Tyranids vs Eldar w/Tyrannic War Veterans (Completed)
Then yeah, you made things quite a bit harder on yourself. You'd have been looking at exposed PCS units (mostly for FB, they don't have any of the good orders anyhow) and probably just Ignores Cover orders and TL from Prescience.
But even just getting off Prescience and Forewarning reliably on 4 WC would be hard.
2014/12/17 17:25:24
Subject: Re:1850 Competitive - Jy2's Pentyrant Tyranids vs Eldar w/Tyrannic War Veterans (Completed)
DJ3 wrote: Then yeah, you made things quite a bit harder on yourself. You'd have been looking at exposed PCS units (mostly for FB, they don't have any of the good orders anyhow) and probably just Ignores Cover orders and TL from Prescience.
But even just getting off Prescience and Forewarning reliably on 4 WC would be hard.
Yep, especially because I had 8 WC of my own.
2014/12/17 19:19:27
Subject: 1850 Competitive - Jy2's Pentyrant Tyranids vs Eldar w/Tyrannic War Veterans (Completed)
We tested a mechanicus list at the club against a four Flyrant list and it got wasted - could not handle four flyrants. I was able to destroy a WS/IK list a DE list and even an Eldar list. But Quad Flyrants - no.
Like many lists today - there is just not enough skyfire. The mechanicus lists will decimate anything that glides or is on the ground. It is good at getting ObSec onto objectives. It is very elite and durable. It has no chance against PentyRant though. It cannot handle psychic buffs and powers or flyers/FMCs well.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/22 03:17:03
2014/12/24 18:05:45
Subject: Re:1850 Competitive - Jy2's Pentyrant Tyranids vs Eldar w/Tyrannic War Veterans (Completed)
felixcat wrote: We tested a mechanicus list at the club against a four Flyrant list and it got wasted - could not handle four flyrants. I was able to destroy a WS/IK list a DE list and even an Eldar list. But Quad Flyrants - no.
TR: Tech-thrall Adsecularis Covenant (10) - 50 Las-lock, Rite of Pure Thought
TR: Tech-thrall Adsecularis Covenant (10) - 50 Las-lock, Rite of Pure Thought
TR: Mechanicum Thallax Cohort (9) - 490 -6x Lightning guns, 3x Photon Thruster, Destructor
HS: Imperial Avenger Strike Fighter (1) - 150 -Avenger Bolt Cannon, 2 Lascannon wing-mounted, Defensive Heavy Stubber
HS: Thanatar Class Siege-Automata Maniple - 275 -TL Mauler Bolt Cannon, Hellex Plasma Mortar, Paragon of Meta
l - 1850 --
Do you have much trouble in finding opponents willing to play against Ad Mech in 40k games?
There are a few problems with your list. You cannot take Rotor Cannons on Castellax. It would be nice, and especially as a free replacement for their bolters! Enhanced Targeting Arrays are a waste of points on stock Castellax. Especially so on your Castellax with dual flamers as it only benefits the Mauler bolt cannon.
Consider splitting up the two Darkfire Castellax if you free up a troop slot. They work great as a pair and just as well solo.
The Avenger Strike Fighter is a fast attack choice not a heavy. Consider swapping it for a Lightning. Both are paper planes and won't last 5 minutes on the board. The avenger has the better starting load out for base points but the Lightning can pack a more effective punch quickly with 2-4 Kraken Penetrator missiles. If you're switching between 30k and 40k games the Lightning has more bang for it's buck.
Ad Mech are crap for flyers/anti air but they make up for that with amazing ground presence. Ignore what flies and focus on annihilating the boots on the ground.
Don't bother with Thallaxi. I've never found them to be that good. You sink a lot of points into a unit that gets ripped apart by heavy bolters, predator cannons, thudd guns, scorpii, sicarans and medusae. Three quad heavy bolters comes in at 120pts and will chew through those Thallaxi nicely over a couple of turns. They suffer badly in 30k matches and will suffer badly against most top tier armies in 40k. Too many points for a 4+/6+ with an 18" range Lightning gun. When you have 20 man fearless squads and S6 T7 3+/5+ MC troops you really don't need Thallaxi.
Ad Mech should be able to do quite well against Pentyrant. Ignore the fliers and decimate the rest of his army. Your opponent can have 5 flyrants shooting at your Castellax all game long and still not kill them all. Imagine the sweat they'd break trying to down two Thanatars.
2014/12/25 08:13:39
Subject: 1850 Competitive - Jy2's Pentyrant Tyranids vs Eldar w/Tyrannic War Veterans (Completed)
This makes me really want to try them out. I've actually got a small army of Mechanicus (unbuilt yet), but don't have the rules for them. That just might become my next project after the LVO.
Do you have much trouble in finding opponents willing to play against Ad Mech in 40k games?
Quite the opposite. people really want see what mechanicus is about.
There are a few problems with your list. You cannot take Rotor Cannons on Castellax.
Indeed not. They should be regular boltguns.
Ad Mech should be able to do quite well against Pentyrant. Ignore the fliers and decimate the rest of his army.
We know they have great ground presence but you[code] cannot ignore four or five tyrants. They will hurt you. And na slew od gaks hittingb on 6s really still is not enough.
Don't bother with Thallaxi. I
WEll, I personally have good luck with thallax. I will say my list is constantly evolving though. Thyey might end up just a unit of three. Thing is the two most efficient nits for Mechanicus lists are castallax with mauler/flamer and krios venator. Sp thallax might become a casualty as I acquire more models.
.....Bay Area Open GT 2013 - Best Tyranids 
.....LVO GT 2014 Team Tournament - Best Generals
