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.

MVBrandt wrote:

 Reecius wrote:
Yeah, Eldar vs. Eldar, or reserve army vs. reserve army often comes down to who goes second regardless of format. The real issue is the IGOUGO format more so than anything, but that is obviously not easily fixed.

We are open to altering the mission structure (and plan on doing it, actually). Any ideas and feedback are appreciated. We've been looking at exactly the change described, actually, of pushing back the scoring a player turn to give both players time to counter the other player.

This and some other tweaks largely solved IGOUGO "who goes 2nd" for NOVA missions this most recent year, both statistically in terms of game outcome and in the survey feedback received from a vast majority of the players. Individual experience will always vary, ofc.

I can echo this - the decision to go first or second was a difficult one in some games, where there were solid advantages to both choices.

MVBrandt wrote:
This and some other tweaks largely solved IGOUGO "who goes 2nd" for NOVA missions this most recent year, both statistically in terms of game outcome and in the survey feedback received from a vast majority of the players. Individual experience will always vary, ofc.

The NOVA missions are the most fun missions I've ever played. They aren't perfect, but i really, really like them, and I think they are a good place to start for anyone looking to write new missions for competitive 40K.

ETA: When I 1st read the missions I wasn't all that on board with them, but after playing them enough to get the hang of how they work, they are outstanding.

 FTGTEvan wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:

 Reecius wrote:
Yeah, Eldar vs. Eldar, or reserve army vs. reserve army often comes down to who goes second regardless of format. The real issue is the IGOUGO format more so than anything, but that is obviously not easily fixed.

We are open to altering the mission structure (and plan on doing it, actually). Any ideas and feedback are appreciated. We've been looking at exactly the change described, actually, of pushing back the scoring a player turn to give both players time to counter the other player.

This and some other tweaks largely solved IGOUGO "who goes 2nd" for NOVA missions this most recent year, both statistically in terms of game outcome and in the survey feedback received from a vast majority of the players. Individual experience will always vary, ofc.

I can echo this - the decision to go first or second was a difficult one in some games, where there were solid advantages to both choices.

Ill third this, ITC missions Achilles heel is the fact that Maelstrom scoring wasn't well thought-out. Outside of the huge advantage to going 2nd, I don't think the ITC missions require much tweaking. Maybe some different Maelstroms and also some different tertiaries (seeing STW/FB/LB all the time gets old).

The NOVA missions have complexity which gives every army more opportunity and that's a good thing.

Was just echoing the maelstrom score timing bit. Not a fan of ITC missions changing altogether.

ill say this, if NOVA added some maelstrom-type missions, I think that would be the perfect format to play.

The scoring at the bottom of the turn part of the ITC missions was actually very thought out, lol, but we aren't married to it. The concept is the same as with NOVA missions. Generating objectives and scoring in the same player turns means it's just too random, there's no counter strategy. By forcing players to wait a player turn to score after generating their objectives, both players get a chance to counter the other. It's the same principal, just applied slightly differently. Which version any individual player prefers is up to them of course and like I said, I honestly don't care where the ideas come from, just that they function well and create a fun, fair mission format. We function in a meritocracy, here. The best ideas win, regardless of source.

As for the VSG,

For what its worth, the ITC inherited that ruling from the INAT/Adepticon FAQ. Not that we're trying to throw anyone under the bus or anything, I personally agree with the ruling, but can see arguments the other way. They are quite common but they do provide defense for some of the weaker armies vs. some of the more powerful armies, allowing them to survive alhpa strikes and such that would otherwise make them extremely difficult to play at higher levels. YMMV, of course.

 Reecius wrote:
The scoring at the bottom of the turn part of the ITC missions was actually very thought out, lol, but we aren't married to it. The concept is the same as with NOVA missions. Generating objectives and scoring in the same player turns means it's just too random, there's no counter strategy. By forcing players to wait a player turn to score after generating their objectives, both players get a chance to counter the other. It's the same principal, just applied slightly differently. Which version any individual player prefers is up to them of course and like I said, I honestly don't care where the ideas come from, just that they function well and create a fun, fair mission format. We function in a meritocracy, here. The best ideas win, regardless of source.

The difference between NOVA and ITC missions scoring progressive objectives, is that in NOVA both players have to wait until the end of their Opponent's turn. In ITC, only the player that goes 1st has to wait until the end of their Opponent's turn. It isn't applied evenly. The 2nd player has a significant advantage. Add to that, that most of the Eternal War missions are also scored at the bottom of turn (The exception being Kill Points), and you have a mission that is designed to favor the 2nd player. Score at the End of your player turn, or at the end of your opponent's player turn, but apply it consistently to both players.

 Reecius wrote:
The scoring at the bottom of the turn part of the ITC missions was actually very thought out, lol, but we aren't married to it. The concept is the same as with NOVA missions. Generating objectives and scoring in the same player turns means it's just too random, there's no counter strategy. By forcing players to wait a player turn to score after generating their objectives, both players get a chance to counter the other. It's the same principal, just applied slightly differently. Which version any individual player prefers is up to them of course and like I said, I honestly don't care where the ideas come from, just that they function well and create a fun, fair mission format. We function in a meritocracy, here. The best ideas win, regardless of source.

As for the VSG,

For what its worth, the ITC inherited that ruling from the INAT/Adepticon FAQ. Not that we're trying to throw anyone under the bus or anything, I personally agree with the ruling, but can see arguments the other way. They are quite common but they do provide defense for some of the weaker armies vs. some of the more powerful armies, allowing them to survive alhpa strikes and such that would otherwise make them extremely difficult to play at higher levels. YMMV, of course.

But only player 2 gets to rebuttal. Player 1 has no chance to effect the ability of player 2 to score maelstroms. That's why beginning of player turn would work well. It means both players actually get a rebuttal.

Player 1 does get to respond as maelstrom are rolled at the start of the game turn, so player 1 knows what player 2 has to do and can weave that into their game plan for their turn.

I do think the idea of scoring at the beginning of a player's next turn is interesting though. Definitely food for thought.

Proposed change to scoring maelstrom: each player scores their maelstrom point at the beginning of their following turn, before generating new maelstrom objectives. It would work like this:

Turn 1:
Player 1 generates his objectives and completes his turn.
Player 2 generates his objectives and completes his turn.

Turn 2:
Player 1 scores any of his objectives he achieved/still holds. He then generates his new objectives and completes his turn.
Player 2 scores any of his objectives he achieved/still holds. He then generates his new objectives and completes his turn.

In this way, each player has 1 player turn to attempt to score their objective, and the opposing player has 1 player turn to attempt to deny any objective while scoring their own.

As stated, they aren't functionally the same. Simply knowing what they are simultaneously doesn't equalize, whereas having to do it on a way that can't be rebutted does.

 FTGTEvan wrote:
Proposed change to scoring maelstrom: each player scores their maelstrom point at the beginning of their following turn, before generating new maelstrom objectives. It would work like this:

Turn 1:
Player 1 generates his objectives and completes his turn.
Player 2 generates his objectives and completes his turn.

Turn 2:
Player 1 scores any of his objectives he achieved/still holds. He then generates his new objectives and completes his turn.
Player 2 scores any of his objectives he achieved/still holds. He then generates his new objectives and completes his turn.

In this way, each player has 1 player turn to attempt to score their objective, and the opposing player has 1 player turn to attempt to deny any objective while scoring their own.

+1, this is exactly how I think it best functions.

 FTGTEvan wrote:
Proposed change to scoring maelstrom: each player scores their maelstrom point at the beginning of their following turn, before generating new maelstrom objectives. It would work like this:

Turn 1:
Player 1 generates his objectives and completes his turn.
Player 2 generates his objectives and completes his turn.

Turn 2:
Player 1 scores any of his objectives he achieved/still holds. He then generates his new objectives and completes his turn.
Player 2 scores any of his objectives he achieved/still holds. He then generates his new objectives and completes his turn.

In this way, each player has 1 player turn to attempt to score their objective, and the opposing player has 1 player turn to attempt to deny any objective while scoring their own.

I like it. I'd be quite happy with this change (although I'm not unhappy with the current situation now).

I seem to recall this same argument about second turn being too powerful leading up to last year's LVO, but when Frontline crunched the numbers it turned out first turn players actually still won more frequently. I don't think they collected data on which player went first this year, though.

First turn had the advantage of alpha strikes and getting your powers off first, while second turn had the advantage of being better at grabbing objectives. If you remove most of the second turn advantage, how do you counter the nore significant first turn advantage?

 DarkLink wrote:
I seem to recall this same argument about second turn being too powerful leading up to last year's LVO, but when Frontline crunched the numbers it turned out first turn players actually still won more frequently. I don't think they collected data on which player went first this year, though.

First turn had the advantage of alpha strikes and getting your powers off first, while second turn had the advantage of being better at grabbing objectives. If you remove most of the second turn advantage, how do you counter the nore significant first turn advantage?

Well, VSG being in a huge number of lists is part of how you protect from alphas. Lots of armies are more mobile and have great reserves/redeployment options. And theres always the tried and true method of deploying out of LOS/range. With good terrain and smart play, its pretty easy not to be alpha struck.

"In a huge number of lists" is a bit of an exaggeration, it was common but certainly not in every, or even most, lists this year. Most of those mobile armies were really mobile with just as many deployment optiins at the previous LVO, and that was before skyhammer, free drop pods, and similar formation benefits. The terrain at the LVOs have always been consistantly heavy on LOS blocking terrain, so that's nothing new. Either way, my point was that the problem you're trying to solve might not even exist (it didn't last year, at least), so why try to solve an imaginary problem for the sake of it, then try to figure out additional changes in order to balance out those unnecessary nerfs in the first place? Make sure you have a problem before jumping through a bunch of hoops in order to solve it.

To be clear, I'm not saying it is an imaginary problem, just that we need to verify that it is an issue first, to avoid doing more harm than good.

 DarkLink wrote:
I seem to recall this same argument about second turn being too powerful leading up to last year's LVO, but when Frontline crunched the numbers it turned out first turn players actually still won more frequently. I don't think they collected data on which player went first this year, though.

First turn had the advantage of alpha strikes and getting your powers off first, while second turn had the advantage of being better at grabbing objectives. If you remove most of the second turn advantage, how do you counter the nore significant first turn advantage?

The issue there is that they included the data from a ALL the games. This includes the round 1 mismatches where a competitive tau list rocks out a mediocre ork list, or necrons steamroll a land raider spearhead with gauss. In those kind of matchups, I wouldn't be surprised to see the advantaged player take first turn just to "seal the deal" and make it quick, but really, that kind of game was only going to end one way, regardless of who goes first or second. Let's face it, whether intentional or not, plenty of people show up who have no realistic chance of ranking high.

To make me a believer of that data, they would've needed to exclude any one-sided stomps and only measure games that are between "comparable" armies. It is my belief that if this measurement were to occur, we would've seen more 2nd turn victories than first. That's just conjecture without the measurement though.

With the high amount of null deployments I definitely think going second can be doubly advantageous in this format.

 DarkLink wrote:
I seem to recall this same argument about second turn being too powerful leading up to last year's LVO, but when Frontline crunched the numbers it turned out first turn players actually still won more frequently. I don't think they collected data on which player went first this year, though.

First turn had the advantage of alpha strikes and getting your powers off first, while second turn had the advantage of being better at grabbing objectives. If you remove most of the second turn advantage, how do you counter the nore significant first turn advantage?

The missions changed since then. With the removal of 1st blood from many of the missions, and the increase in the points of the Maelstrom Missions, the 1st Turn bias dissipated somewhat. That resulted in them trying to put 1st blood back into missions to reduce the 2nd turn bias, when they probably should have switched Maelstrom Scoring over to the player turn instead of the Game turn.

If Maelstrom were still fairly irrelevant to the winning of the game like it was at last year's LVO, then they could get away with a 2nd turn bias for it.

ETA. When Prepping for Last year's LVO, I practiced to ignore Malestrom Completely. 1st Blood, Primary, and Linebreaker. That is how you won that version of the ITC missions. I believe i won the Maelstrom in both of my Losses at last year's LVO, but it was irrelevant to the outcome of the games.

 DarkLink wrote:
"In a huge number of lists" is a bit of an exaggeration, it was common but certainly not in every, or even most, lists this year. Most of those mobile armies were really mobile with just as many deployment optiins at the previous LVO, and that was before skyhammer, free drop pods, and similar formation benefits. The terrain at the LVOs have always been consistantly heavy on LOS blocking terrain, so that's nothing new. Either way, my point was that the problem you're trying to solve might not even exist (it didn't last year, at least), so why try to solve an imaginary problem for the sake of it, then try to figure out additional changes in order to balance out those unnecessary nerfs in the first place? Make sure you have a problem before jumping through a bunch of hoops in order to solve it.

To be clear, I'm not saying it is an imaginary problem, just that we need to verify that it is an issue first, to avoid doing more harm than good.

I've played at least 20 games in ITC format and from my, admittedly anecdotal evidence, it is far more beneficial to go 2nd. And ive noticed many of my opponents and members of my FLGS feel the same way. There are almost no scenarios in which id rather go first in ITC.

niv-mizzet wrote:

 DarkLink wrote:
I seem to recall this same argument about second turn being too powerful leading up to last year's LVO, but when Frontline crunched the numbers it turned out first turn players actually still won more frequently. I don't think they collected data on which player went first this year, though.

First turn had the advantage of alpha strikes and getting your powers off first, while second turn had the advantage of being better at grabbing objectives. If you remove most of the second turn advantage, how do you counter the nore significant first turn advantage?

The issue there is that they included the data from a ALL the games. This includes the round 1 mismatches where a competitive tau list rocks out a mediocre ork list, or necrons steamroll a land raider spearhead with gauss. In those kind of matchups, I wouldn't be surprised to see the advantaged player take first turn just to "seal the deal" and make it quick, but really, that kind of game was only going to end one way, regardless of who goes first or second. Let's face it, whether intentional or not, plenty of people show up who have no realistic chance of ranking high.

To make me a believer of that data, they would've needed to exclude any one-sided stomps and only measure games that are between "comparable" armies. It is my belief that if this measurement were to occur, we would've seen more 2nd turn victories than first. That's just conjecture without the measurement though.

The types of armies that would do well curbstomping soft armies would probably be best doing the same against better armies as well. Tau would actually probably want orks to go first, so the orks would move up into 36" broadside range to maximize their firepower. Without any data to bas it on, army matchups are too much of a variable for this to be more than speculation, though.

tag8833 wrote:
The missions changed since then. With the removal of 1st blood from many of the missions, and the increase in the points of the Maelstrom Missions, the 1st Turn bias dissipated somewhat.

If Maelstrom were still fairly irrelevant to the winning of the game like it was at last year's LVO, then they could get away with a 2nd turn bias for it.

True, and with the increased value of maelstorm, that's a 2 point swing towrds second turn. We still could use some numbers to see how big that is, or if the first turns won their games mostly by destroying their opponents and the power of their alpha strikes were the big advantage. Too bad first turns weren't tracked this year.

LValx wrote:
I've played at least 20 games in ITC format and from my, admittedly anecdotal evidence, it is far more beneficial to go 2nd. And ive noticed many of my opponents and members of my FLGS feel the same way. There are almost no scenarios in which id rather go first in ITC.

Whereas I've found quite a few games where I want to go first. It depends heavily on your style of play and what types of armies you run, and what army you're up against.

We've been debating generating missions at the beginning of each player turn and scoring at the beginning of their next player turn all day here in the studio and there are pros and cons.

As we do it now, both players do get knowledge of what the other player does and gets a chance for rebuttal. The player going first has to do it preemptively which can be perceived as disadvantage (and in some cases, can be an actual disadvantage).

If you generate at the beginning of the player turn, then score before generating on the next turn, both players do get a rebuttal but you get a wonky situation where the player going first acts on his first turn without knowledge of player two is trying to do, but gets the final defensive action of the game without knowledge of if the game will end or not, so still feels slightly weighted towards turn 2.

We're exploring a lot of options and thanks for the constructive feedback.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As for stats on the ITC format, the last time we tracked the data (which is a bit old, now, to be fair, but the same format) going first had the slight advantage in win percentage, 51% to 49%. It was almost perfectly balanced.

Ah, I'd thought it was a slightly larger margin than that.

If that's the case, I'd guess that it's now a slight 2nd turn advantage due to the removal of first blood and the increased importance of maelstorm. A 2 point swing is not insignificant.

 Reecius wrote:
We've been debating generating missions at the beginning of each player turn and scoring at the beginning of their next player turn all day here in the studio and there are pros and cons.

As we do it now, both players do get knowledge of what the other player does and gets a chance for rebuttal. The player going first has to do it preemptively which can be perceived as disadvantage (and in some cases, can be an actual disadvantage).

If you generate at the beginning of the player turn, then score before generating on the next turn, both players do get a rebuttal but you get a wonky situation where the player going first acts on his first turn without knowledge of player two is trying to do, but gets the final defensive action of the game without knowledge of if the game will end or not, so still feels slightly weighted towards turn 2.

We're exploring a lot of options and thanks for the constructive feedback.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As for stats on the ITC format, the last time we tracked the data (which is a bit old, now, to be fair, but the same format) going first had the slight advantage in win percentage, 51% to 49%. It was almost perfectly balanced.

It might be a slight advantage to going second, but nothing like it is now. Currently player two gets to see actually which maelstrom objectives player 1 commits to and respond accordingly. Player two also gets to see how many objectives player one has accomplished and which ones he chooses not to. Its a huge asymmetric information advantage. Player two can see how many player one can possible score, how many he can possibly score, see the total score of the mission in terms of best case/worst case (i.e. I can score one and maintain a lead, I need to score two and deny one, etc.) and commit combat power accordingly. Player one has to guess at what player two will do and allocate to the unknown. Switching to scoring at the start of the next player turn greatly offsets this advantage as player one has a roughly equal information advantage.

this post was gibberish

 LValx wrote:
You could also have both players simultaneously generate maelstrom at beginning of Game turn then still score them at beginning of following player turn.

In which case the player going second doesn't even get a chance to try to score? I think you need to explain it better, what it sounds like you're saying is either exactly what ITC does now, or it's a setup that doesn't make sense.

How about not have maelstrom in every mission ? It heavily favors certain builds .

 Dozer Blades wrote:
How about not have maelstrom in every mission ? It heavily favors certain builds .

This is a good point

Kill points needs to be in more missions, as it is, we have 6 games, each with two sets of objectives to win, so 12 missions over the course of 6 games, of which, 11 are objective based.

 DarkLink wrote:

 LValx wrote:
You could also have both players simultaneously generate maelstrom at beginning of Game turn then still score them at beginning of following player turn.

In which case the player going second doesn't even get a chance to try to score? I think you need to explain it better, what it sounds like you're saying is either exactly what ITC does now, or it's a setup that doesn't make sense.

yep, I worded that wrong, ignore haha. I really was just going to end up reiterating Evans method. I know I participated in a local RTT in NOVA that modifed when the maelstroms were scored, i'm going to try to find out what they did to modify the scoring.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 easysauce wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
How about not have maelstrom in every mission ? It heavily favors certain builds .

This is a good point

Kill points needs to be in more missions, as it is, we have 6 games, each with two sets of objectives to win, so 12 missions over the course of 6 games, of which, 11 are objective based.

Add more KP and you will see more Deathstars. And KP is a pretty poor mission, it requires far less tactical acumen than scoring objectives.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
How about not have maelstrom in every mission ? It heavily favors certain builds .

I think having primary/secondary/Tertiary missions is good, but I do agree that maelstrom might not be the best, or might be better in say, every other mission.

But I am curious as to what build you think maelstrom favors? Mobile armies? Because I would argue that objective based games in general favor mobile armies, not just maelstrom.