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.

 Kimchi Gamer wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Reecius wrote:
Garret, you do realize we have no control over which LoW are made or how many or for which factions, right? That is absolutely beyond our control.

We apply our guidelines to all LoW that come out, if that unfortunately nixes one of the few (or only LoW) your factoin gets, that stinks, but it is better that than to let something in that disrupts the game just to allow one faction to get a LoW. That is being fair and consistent, which is what we strive to do.

But you do understand why this can make players feel left out right? and upset them? I mean I applaud you for sticking to your rules. But you seem perplexed why people are upset.
And please dont use RL names, it isnt something I want out.

Garret, don't make me get the fedora picture

Wait......No...........

Budzerker wrote:

 Brothererekose wrote:

 RiTides wrote:

 Reecius wrote:
@brotherE

YES! We love stuff like that, let the Grudge matches commence! lol

We will come up with a way to facilitate that, working on some scoring software now, actually.

That is pretty cool, particularly if some high profile names face off with competitive armies, and play the full game out / don't cede full points to one side or the other. Looking forward to hearing of some grudge matches play out this way

Reece,
Shall we have Call Outs here on dakka or will you get back to us with another mechanism? FLG's site?

I'm holding back the joke Call Outs. I couldn't figure out anything funny about that Grant-Stolen-Car guy or Mr. I-Know-How-to-Paint-Tau and such. Sometimes the Comedy Well dries out while I'm lowering the bucket for more.

That reminds me! What happened to last years round 1 grudge match between Nick Rose and JY2? It never took place was my understanding. Did one duck the other? Inquiring minds want to know! Rematch this year? Huh huh?

There was a mistake in the matchup software (or rather, data entry)....as in I wasn't even in their system at all! That's why they couldn't match me up against him. After everyone was matched up, I had to go up to them and then I was paired against another person who wasn't entered into their system as well (there were a few of us like that). Unfortunately in such a large tournament, it isn't easy to go back and change the matchups.

Oh, well, maybe next year....assuming I haven't scared Nick away with my losing streak.

The only downside I could see with grudge matches is it's possible (if someone Really truly had a grudge ) that a player could tech to beat that particular opponent. But folks would absolutely know what they were getting into so if they didn't mix up their standard list / etc then that would be on them a bit. Very much looking forward to seeing some of these call outs happen and the results of them!

 RiTides wrote:
The only downside I could see with grudge matches is it's possible (if someone Really truly had a grudge ) that a player could tech to beat that particular opponent. But folks would absolutely know what they were getting into so if they didn't mix up their standard list / etc then that would be on them a bit. Very much looking forward to seeing some of these call outs happen and the results of them!

It may theoretically harm the evaluative competitiveness of the event, but it's fun! Which is the whole point.

Grudge matches sound fun. To bad I don't have a grudge lol

The scoring at the end of the game turn is a killer for me, it seems to switch favour far too much towards second turn with turbo-boosting bikes etc. We've played a couple of games as a practice run here and the difference between the ITC and our usual ETC scoring methods is noticeable. ultimately you're playing a turn-based game where only one players turns count towards half the result of your match.

as for that tau bugger, it sucks that it not smaller and less powerful and it sucks that imperial guard have all the fun, but when you can bring that, and the poor old blood angels can only take dante...GW should really put more in the dexes...only then the internet will rise up as one and Wraith-bitch about it. no-one wins, ever

MVBrandt wrote:

 RiTides wrote:
The only downside I could see with grudge matches is it's possible (if someone Really truly had a grudge ) that a player could tech to beat that particular opponent. But folks would absolutely know what they were getting into so if they didn't mix up their standard list / etc then that would be on them a bit. Very much looking forward to seeing some of these call outs happen and the results of them!

It may theoretically harm the evaluative competitiveness of the event, but it's fun! Which is the whole point.

That's the point of grudge matches imo.

In fact, cheers if you can remain competitive after the grudge match.

@Thread

Sorry if I was a bit short, I've been getting a tad overwhelmed lately. Been training a new employee, released new mats, etc. The Tau Suit thing kind of blindsided me a bit, lol. I get it though, that model is awesome.

@Dozer

No worries, bro!

@HotSauce

Sorry, buddy. I edited it back to your screen name.

As for players feeling left out because their LoW don't meet the qualifying standards, we can't help that. For a while, Edlar has no LoW at all! And Dark Eldar, lol, they just get left out in the cold. Speaking of which, FW should make the Tantalus a LoW again, it would actually be decent!

Really though, most LoW are not that great. We only see a select few of them in practice.

@RiTides

Thank you for the feedback and support! We appreciate it. We actually have LoW guidelines in place and stick to them with very few exceptions. I screwed up by not posting them on FLG which opened the door to speculation as to our methods, they actually are applied fairly. Folks may not agree with the guidelines, but hey, that goes with the territory.

As with everything in the ITC, those guidelines are up for debate, too. Nothing is set in stone.

@kloma

This comes up a lot, but the reason we do it is actually so that both players have a chance to know what either player is trying to do and then to counter them. If you generate at the beginning of the player turn and then score at the end of the player turn, the other player simply sits back and watches it happen, they have no chance to try and stop you. It becomes very non-interactive which we think makes for poor missions design. YMMV of course.

@Thread

Yeah, we had a pairing snafu last year due to an unforseen consequence with having multiple registration computers running at the same time. So, we weren't able to feature the grudge matches. This year, we will ensure that does not occur and will hype up the grudge matches pre-event, too!

@Erekose

We will set up a way to make the call-outs, most likely on our forums or something, I will figure it out.

@MVBrandt

Indeed! It is about fun, and Call-outs are fun!

That's great Reecius, and I was a bit short yesterday too - GrumpyTides was out due to lack of sleep . Thanks for the thorough reply, and makes sense to stick to your LoW criteria most of the time. Will be good to see what that is later on when you have time (no rush!)

 kloma wrote:
The scoring at the end of the game turn is a killer for me, it seems to switch favour far too much towards second turn with turbo-boosting bikes etc. We've played a couple of games as a practice run here and the difference between the ITC and our usual ETC scoring methods is noticeable. ultimately you're playing a turn-based game where only one players turns count towards half the result of your match.

as for that tau bugger, it sucks that it not smaller and less powerful and it sucks that imperial guard have all the fun, but when you can bring that, and the poor old blood angels can only take dante...GW should really put more in the dexes...only then the internet will rise up as one and Wraith-bitch about it. no-one wins, ever

Reece - why not have it scored at the beginning of the player's NEXT turn? That's to say, instead of whoever goes first giving his opponent a chance to retort more effectively, have them determine their Maelstrom at the start of their player turn, and determine whether they accomplished it by the start of their next player turn (before *anything* occurs, i.e. reserves) ... then both players are always effectively going 2nd with re: Maelstrom response. I only ask b/c we ran into the same problem w/ designing our accumulation missions, and the best solution of those we worked through was this one - still accomplishes the result you're looking for of giving both players a fair chance to respond, but seems more fair than the present (where one player has to complete his movements and thus give his opponent a clear roadmap for contest, and the other gets last moves / shots to accomplish his own and prevent his opponent's). Just a $.02, obviously. Or maybe $.01. Paypal works fine.

We thought about that too, but then what do you do for the player that gets the bottom of the last turn? The player going first doesn't get to counter them.

 Reecius wrote:
We thought about that too, but then what do you do for the player that gets the bottom of the last turn? The player going first doesn't get to counter them.

Still an advantage to going 2nd there, just less of one than currently (advantage on bottom of last turn instead of advantage on every single turn). That's to say, you are correct, the person going last has an advantage, it's not perfect, but if the argument against doing it this way is that the 2nd player has an advantage on Turn Last, then your argument also says your current way is invalid as well, but to a greater extent. That is the same question / issue we ran into - namely, the red herring of "well, obvious flaw is obvious" when more prevalent same flaw in alternate is actually somehow less obvious. Weird things, the way our brains work (it was my response initially as well ... the response you just made).

I actually really liked the NOVA progressive scoring - which was top of player turns 2-6. To adapt it to Maelstrom type objectives, you could generate at the beginning of your player turn, and score it at the beginning of your next turn. This way the opponent always has 1 player turn to counter. This would probably require a change to the Maelstrom objectives - destroying a unit could be difficult to track/follow.

It's all good, I'm just happy to be going, the flights gonna be a killer though

Guess I'll just have to play to table people if i go first. (or at least avoid deep striking my own librarian next to my own culexus like last game )

im sorry if this is the wrong format to post in but I would like to weigh in on the scoring as well.

Having run both the ITC and Nova missions in a GT setting ( Both sets of missions were enjoyed at equal value )

We found that scoring at the top of the turn starting on 2 was more enjoyable than at the bottom of the turn. It also made scoring a little less complicated because the player whose turn it was also knew they were also to be scoring.

If Rawdogger isn’t working the event I want to throw down and challenge him. I want a piece of his Stormlord.

I'd assume that the event will be working Rawdogger instead.

 jy2 wrote:
I'd assume that the event will be working Rawdogger instead.

Thanks for this, Jim. It's nice to know I'm not the only one who knows how to post trash talk.

@MVBrandt

I suppose it comes down to if you think the player going second really has that much of an advantage. We (obviously) play these missions all the dang time to fine tune them and that has only ever come up with players that encounter them for the first time in tournaments. None of the regulars ever mention that they feel the player going second actually does have that big of an advantage with the possible exception of some Battle Company builds due to all the vehicles and ObSec.

There are a lot of variables in that though, perhaps familiarity being the strongest of them.

The real issue, honestly, is the IGOUGO format in a game system that has a model count that has inflated beyond that being a suitable turn structure.

Just listened to the most recent FLG podcast. Criteria for LoW makes great sense. Thanks for transparency (eventually), logic and reasoning seem sound, good bye Supremacy Titan (for now).

 Reecius wrote:
@MVBrandt

I suppose it comes down to if you think the player going second really has that much of an advantage. We (obviously) play these missions all the dang time to fine tune them and that has only ever come up with players that encounter them for the first time in tournaments. None of the regulars ever mention that they feel the player going second actually does have that big of an advantage with the possible exception of some Battle Company builds due to all the vehicles and ObSec.

There are a lot of variables in that though, perhaps familiarity being the strongest of them.

The real issue, honestly, is the IGOUGO format in a game system that has a model count that has inflated beyond that being a suitable turn structure.

Have played them a lot, as has zed. NBD and was just sharing $.02. Taking fresh looks and assuming your format is flawed and can improve is always a healthy stance, one I know you share. This is totally just a subjective area.

 FTGTEvan wrote:
I actually really liked the NOVA progressive scoring - which was top of player turns 2-6. To adapt it to Maelstrom type objectives, you could generate at the beginning of your player turn, and score it at the beginning of your next turn. This way the opponent always has 1 player turn to counter. This would probably require a change to the Maelstrom objectives - destroying a unit could be difficult to track/follow.

I2nd this, nova did a great job really mitigating going 2nd. It's still an advantage, but not nearly the kind of advantage it was in say last years lvo, or adepticon, or killadelphia.

 Reecius wrote:
We thought about that too, but then what do you do for the player that gets the bottom of the last turn? The player going first doesn't get to counter them.

I think a bidding system might works. for example: both player can bid on going first or 2nd with like number of re-roll or anything re-roll just an example. so like player 1 won the bid with like 5 re-roll that mean player 2 gets 5 re-roll during that game. at some point, having the choice of picking going 1st or 2nd is going to out weight by the amount of re-roll in the pool (I really doubt going 2nd worth 100 re-roll for my opponent). If both players don't care to bid then dice off is simple enough since they both place so little value on picking.

We am happy to announce that Privateer Press will be joining us at this year's Las Vegas Open. They will have a booth with many key staff members from their organization. We will more than likely see a bunch of new releases as well. Privateer Press staff will be available for open gaming and playing scrambles throughout the day and also during our After Hours events. There are other plans in the works too and they will be announced once they are firmed up.

We are very happy to have Privateer Press joining us at LVO and we will make sure to show them a good time

@Lobukia

Happy to help!

@MVBrandt

Sound advice as always, buddy. And yes, a critical eye is needed for growth.

@Krootman

We will do some analysis. I still go first more often than not, personally.

@tyllon

Interesting idea, might add a lot of complexity to the system and bookkeeping, but it is a cool idea.

Went and toured the property today for the LVO 2016 to get logistics sorted out, etc. Snapped a quick pic of the hall this year and WOW, it is stupid big! 40,000+sqft of gaming glory to be had!

That carpet... yes

Best of luck, Reece!

Lol, yes, the carpet is a tad funny, but it actually isn't as noticeable in RL.

@Kronk

Thanks!

Reecius I sent you a pm

Email me, please, I rarely check my PMs.

Contact@FrontlineGaming.org

Thanks!