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.

So be fair though every maelstom mission paired with an objective mission involves KPs in some fashion (ie: kill a unit), so KP isnt that under-seen. Furthermore if it's not KP then its about getting across the board quickly, which only eldar are bananaballs at. Most other MSU spam is still relatively slow.

Largo39 wrote:
So be fair though every maelstom mission paired with an objective mission involves KPs in some fashion (ie: kill a unit), so KP isnt that under-seen. Furthermore if it's not KP then its about getting across the board quickly, which only eldar are bananaballs at. Most other MSU spam is still relatively slow.

THIS! people keep forgetting that in just about every ITC scenario, theres a KP-esque mission. Some of the missions 50% of maelstroms are simply destroy a unit.

Please keep submitting your lists, regardless of placement.

I've got a good chunk of the top 50 lists so far at: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/y28px3mgjeergdn/AADDpUf3n_u2QfkiYzDzHSh0a?dl=0

 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.

First- I'm not a fan of kill points at all. It heavily favors just having the stronger army, instead of allowing the weaker army to try to play to the mission to win despite the power disparity. It also favors elite units and deathstars heavily. If KP were more common in events, I'd probably just bring imperial Knights to try and be competitive.

Second- Every maelstrom chart except for the one during purge the alien has 1/3 of the options as "kill a unit," except for scouring, which has half of them. So kill points are actually part of every combined mission in some form or fashion. There's also 2 big game hunters iirc, first strike, 2 first bloods, and 6 slay the warlord tertiaries. All of those being relevant to just killing certain targets. I'd say killing stuff is plenty prevalent.

What I have found (been soliciting a ton of feedback from tourament players) is that the most savvy players pretty much universally want to see maelstrom scoring go to player turn, in general we see the impact is pretty minimal on the ITC as a whole. However, the best players are all saying the same thing.

We've been debating alternate formats all day and just play tested some 1650 (I am a huge fan of this points level now, btw, much faster) with generating points at the beginning of your player turn and then scoring at the beginning of your next player turn.

It worked quite well, actually and gives the player going first the advantage in the last turn. I think it's a simple, solid fix. Takes a bit of getting used to though, if you've been playing ITC missions for a while.

Also, we're messing with maelstrom to make it slightly less random to minimize bad luck streaks. Our tests have been very promising.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh and again, thank you for all the constructive feedback. Been very helpful.

TBH, I think mealstrom needs to be done away with. or atleast made so mobile armies tht are MSU are not given an unfaire advantage.MSU IMO is what is slowing the game down, not points

Half the maelstroms involve destroying units, exceedingly easy vs msu. And you keep mentioning msu, yet out of top 8 I'd argue only 3 armies were truly MSU, Sisk and Chesters lists were the only ones who took 15+ individual units (barring ICs). 2 players used deaths tars (Aaron and Alex) and one players entire army was essentially 3 mcs + a mini death star.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Most armies can easily pack around 20 units into 1850, yet you didn't see many armies outside of BC doing that. And from what I heard the KP mission took out a good chunk of the Gladius players.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Death Star 40k will play faster, it'll also kill enjoyment like it did in 6th.

 Reecius wrote:
Also, we're messing with maelstrom to make it slightly less random to minimize bad luck streaks. Our tests have been very promising.

I made lots of proposals on better ways to approach your Maestrom Objectives. Let me reiterate a few now that you are in the process of actually Looking at them.

Option 1) Fix the current system with minimal Changes.
Objective Placement. All Maelstrom Objectives should either be in No-Mans Land or have a copy in each Deployment zone.

Add On #1: The Linebreaker, and Hold the Line objectives should either be rerollable on turn 1, or have an alternative objective. For Instance:
Have a scoring unit at least partially within the enemy deployment zone or Run/Flat Out/Turbo Boost 3 or more units.
Have at least 3 of your scoring units and no enemy scoring units at least partially within your own deployment zone or Have 3 units in the opponent's Deployment zone.

Add On #2: Be mindful of "Deployment zone" in vanguard deployment.

Option 2) Do away with rolling for Maelstrom
The idea here, is that each turn you pick 2 Objectives from the Maelstrom list, but you cannot pick the same objective on 2 consecutive turns.

Add On #3: Mixing up the Maelstrom list a bit would be good. For Instance "Control 2 or more table Quarters" is a good Maelstrom Objective. "Complete a successful Charge" is a good Maelstrom Objective. They don't have to be so Objective based, and it would diversify the meta a bit.

Option 3) Add a multi-tier Maelstrom, this isn't so much a fix as a way to add some dynamism.
The easiest way to explain this is with an example:
1. For 1 Point Hold Either Objective 1, Get a Bonus point if you hold 2 or more objectives.
2. For 1 Point Hold Either Objective 2, Get a Bonus point if you hold an objective that was held by your opponent at the start of your turn.
3. For 1 Point Destroy an enemy unit, Get a bonus point if you Kill a unit in Assault
4. For 1 Point Destroy an enemy unit. Get a bonus point if you Kill 3 or more enemy Units.
5. For 1 Point Have a scoring unit at least partially within the enemy deployment zone, Get a Bonus Point if you have 3 or more Scoring units partially within the enemy Deployment zone.
6. For 1 Point Have a unit closer to your Board edge than your opponent. Get a Bonus point if you Have at least 3 of your scoring units and no enemy scoring units at least partially within your own deployment zone,

I think the Tertiary points could use an update as well.
First Blood can work sometimes, but it doesn't work at all in the Kill Points mission. I would probably do away with the Kill Points mission, and Incooperate Kill points into every mission like Nova, or ETC, but if you are sticking with Kill Points, you can replace First Blood with another unique objective that isn't scored so Early. Last Laugh is good. Strike the Rank and File is a great Tertiary, because it encourages a slightly more balanced army Comp. Big Game Hunter is Great. Marked for Death (Where you nominate a unit in your opponents army to kill) is fun. Lots of Kill point related options where the game wouldn't be over if you failed to get it based on list design. First Strike works fine, but it wouldn't be great in the Kill Points Mission.

Slay The Warlord is fine once in a while, but doesn't treat all armies fairly. So instead of having it in all 6 missions. Maybe it could be in 2 of the 6.

Linebreaker is good. Being in 5 of the 6 missions might be excessive, because some armies (Eldar) are always going to get it, while other armies have a much harder time with it.

Big Game Hunter is great the way it is.

Table Quarters is good. I might swap it in for one of the Linebreakers or Slay the Warlords.

King of the Hill is fine. Need to resolve what happens if the players Tie, including a tie of 0.


One last thing. There are gigantic swings in ITC missions. "If the game ends now, I win 11-1. If it goes on to turn 6, you Win 9 - 3." That sort of scenario isn't appropriately representing a close game. I know that you run a W/L system, but it feels like updating battle points in some way to better represent the outcome of the game would be good.

Yeah I was interested to see that MSU didnt actually have that great an impact at LVO. Id' be curious as to the official results but it seems to have been a lot of bark but no resulting bite.

Demons also seemed curiously not as dense up there either. It seemed more about eldar and cronss with DA waiting just in the wings.

4/8 of the top 8 had 15 or more Kill Points. Idk how much more MSU you want them to be.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
20 of the Top 36 LVO Lists had 15 Units/KPs or more. Yes, to me, MSU still rules.

My battle company has 31 kp. 15 kp is not that much for an army at 1850, Id guess that is a normal or average amount of units. Even Death Star armies approach that number if you count ics. What do you expect to see at 1850?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And btw I would hardly call an even split in top 8 and a 5 pt advantage in top 36 'ruling', that's a bit hyperbolic to say the least. Also, you say still rules as though MSU has been dominating GTs, even though Deathstars and Daemons win GTs with regularity. I'd argue that for pretty much all of 6th and up until recently in 7th, that Deathstars and more elite armies were doing better competitively.

My Battle Company has 33 KPs and only lost once at LVO. Round 6. You said it like MSU was non existent in the top tables which wasn't true.

There was 3 Daemons, 3 Death Star armies and 6 Battle Companies in the Top 40.

This is a weird discussion. MSU has major advantages by the mechanics, and also represents patently good tactical doctrine. Deathstars only do well when given ridiculous mechanics like 1/12 failsave odds after buffs and invisibility and the like. If only the top half was MSU, game rules and missions are helping balance what otherwise would be the case. Always been the case.

 Julnlecs wrote:
My Battle Company has 33 KPs and only lost once at LVO. Round 6. You said it like MSU was non existent in the top tables which wasn't true.

There was 3 Daemons, 3 Death Star armies and 6 Battle Companies in the Top 40.

At no point did I say it was non-existent, quote me please. All I am doing is refuting the idea of MSU having been overly powerful within ITC structure. I ran a TWC list for about a year, low model count, relatively low unit count (14 units including ICs) that did every bit as well in ITC, possibly better due to its pure offensive output. My only point is that while, yes, MSU is good (It always will be because its a sound tactic) it isn't overpowering and isn't something that the missions should discourage for the good of the game. MSU lists are more engaging than deathstars or super heavys or GMCs, IMO at least.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
well gak, MVB beat me to it.

 LValx wrote:
Half the maelstroms involve destroying units, exceedingly easy vs msu. And you keep mentioning msu, yet out of top 8 I'd argue only 3 armies were truly MSU, Sisk and Chesters lists were the only ones who took 15+ individual units (barring ICs). 2 players used deaths tars (Aaron and Alex) and one players entire army was essentially 3 mcs + a mini death star.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Most armies can easily pack around 20 units into 1850, yet you didn't see many armies outside of BC doing that. And from what I heard the KP mission took out a good chunk of the Gladius players.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Death Star 40k will play faster, it'll also kill enjoyment like it did in 6th.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
You said "you didn't see many armies but BatCo doing that" but I did see a lot of Top armies at LVO doing it. MSU is still king in ITC.

MSU is king, period. Always has been.

I asked in another thread and was pointed to this thread. Is Alan (Daemon player) a member here? If so, do you know his handle so I could PM some questions about how he played Daemons?

Not being in an area where there are a lot of competitive players, I was hoping to gain some insight on how to play my daemon army more effectively. If anyone knows the answer to these questions, I would appreciate it greatly!

Okay fine, I retract a bit my saying MSU was all bark and refine it to say "extreme" MSU (BCs) were more bark than bit.

I'm not sure I qualify 15 units to be "MSU", if only because that would then technically include deathstars givne the amount of characters they have, but certainly 33 is "extreme MSU", so lets just focus on extreme then.

Either way 6 out of 40 is.. um, a pretty even showing? Given the amount of BC players im sure there were that doesnt strike me as the win record you'd expect. I'm not saying its bad at all, but still not particularly dominant either.

Furthermore you limit the result to the top 16 and it drops to.. 1

4 eldar - 12,18, 17,15
1 BC - infinite
2 demons - 10, 9 (at first)
2 cult mechanicus - 12, 16,
3 crons - 12, 16, 15
1 tau - 12 units
2 ravenwing - deathstars
1 - unknown

SO.. yeah? heck if you amend the "MSU" definition to be just 20 units or more the MSU count drops to.. 1.

 Julnlecs wrote:

 LValx wrote:
Half the maelstroms involve destroying units, exceedingly easy vs msu. And you keep mentioning msu, yet out of top 8 I'd argue only 3 armies were truly MSU, Sisk and Chesters lists were the only ones who took 15+ individual units (barring ICs). 2 players used deaths tars (Aaron and Alex) and one players entire army was essentially 3 mcs + a mini death star.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Most armies can easily pack around 20 units into 1850, yet you didn't see many armies outside of BC doing that. And from what I heard the KP mission took out a good chunk of the Gladius players.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Death Star 40k will play faster, it'll also kill enjoyment like it did in 6th.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
You said "you didn't see many armies but BatCo doing that" but I did see a lot of Top armies at LVO doing it. MSU is still king in ITC.

I also said 20 units. Your idea and my idea of MSU is different. Under your definition of MSU a Wolfstar qualifies because it packs around 15 units (including ICs). Its rare to see any army have less than 10 units, so IMO having ~15 units is pretty average, not really MSU. Most armies are taking at least one big expensive unit that sucks up 15-30% of an armys overall pts (WKs, IKs, Stormsurges). You say MSU is king, which to me implies some level of dominance, I don't see it.

That being said, I definitely think MSU is the best tactic for list building, but I don't think it makes winning any easier, if anything I'd argue MSU is more difficult to play than a deathstar list or an elite list built around superheavies/GMCs which is why despite BC being, IMO, the best overall TAC MSU list, it didn't perform overwhelmingly well. As someone who recently switched from TWC to Gladius, I can say that the Gladius is far, far more difficult to win, even if it happens to follow a more sound tactic and is a better take all comers army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm also not going to keep arguing about what qualifies as MSU and what doesn't. Its completely subjective and there is no way for one of us to be right or wrong. Just different opinions on a matter.

MVBrandt wrote:
MSU is king, period. Always has been.

You don't think it's performing better lately than it has at times historically, though?

It depends on what anyone here means exactly by the term / etc, of course... which makes it a bit hard to discuss. But seeing mostly 100-point units isn't something I thought has "always" been king... but again, that might not be what you mean!

I think Battle Company and a general cheapening of units and increase in free units causes MSU to do better, yes, because you can do more units than you used to be able to do. I don't think that's a byproduct of missions or anything.

But even in the past, Deathstar armies like Draigo star and the like did NOT do well. They did well SOMETIMES when they lucked out with their objective-mission match-ups and abused KP matchups or bad mission formats where tourneys fielded more than the book balanced 1/3 of missions as KP, while also being piloted by very solid players.

Even when those sorts of armies were getting a lot of press for the big annoying wound allocation mess units, MSU armies were generally performing much better.

It's a bit of a long-running personal "funny" for me, because often the only way to "make MSU less good" is to use missions that are logically silly, like Kill Points. In most* game systems with tons of models ranging from "free" to 500+ points each, people would scoff at the notion of awarding equal value to all things killed.

The fact somebody said we should un-nerf Invisibility proves we are drifting further from God's light.

 RiTides wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:
MSU is king, period. Always has been.

You don't think it's performing better lately than it has at times historically, though?

It depends on what anyone here means exactly by the term / etc, of course... which makes it a bit hard to discuss. But seeing mostly 100-point units isn't something I thought has "always" been king... but again, that might not be what you mean!

MSU performed WAY better in 5th, it was essentially all MSU back then. 6th barely saw MSU because it was Deathstars everywhere. MSU has just recently been making a big comeback IMO. And as MVBrandt pointed out, the only ways to hurt MSU, mission-wise, will hurt the game by encouraging more deathstar armies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The fact somebody said we should un-nerf Invisibility proves we are drifting further from God's light.

I think they should un-nerf it. Its a pointless nerf, much like the 2+ rerollable nerf. Invisible units, even with the nerf to invis, are still by all practical means, invincible. You don't beat deathstar units by engaging them and playing their game, you beat them by not engaging them at all. Having the mindset of "I've got to kill units" is what causes people to lose against deathstars, not invisibility being OP (not saying that invis is balanced). The nerf to invis and 2+ reroll just tricks people into thinking they can hurt those units, when in reality they still cant do enough damage for it to matter.

Math tends to disagree with your invis and 2+ rerollable nerf is useless. Because the 2+ rerollable nerf is essentially the same odds as a 3+ rerollable. You are correct to still play the way you state if you can; however the increased odds in your favor also help you defend vs those Death Stars when you need too.

gungo wrote:
Math tends to disagree with your invis and 2+ rerollable nerf is useless. Because the 2+ rerollable nerf is essentially the same odds as a 3+ rerollable. You are correct to still play the way you state if you can; however the increased odds in your favor also help you defend vs those Death Stars when you need too.

1/12 failed is a fair bit better than 1/9. And even a unit with 3+ rerollable isn't really worth engaging. It will always be too inefficient. If your plan is to beat a deathstar by engaging it, you will likely lose. The ITC missions themselves are a bigger nerf to deathstars than the nerf to invis or rerolls, IMO at least.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, I don't really care either way on Invis or the Rerolls, as I stated, the nerfs don't effect my playstyle or strategy. I just happen to think the less changes made to the rules the better.

 LValx wrote:

gungo wrote:
Math tends to disagree with your invis and 2+ rerollable nerf is useless. Because the 2+ rerollable nerf is essentially the same odds as a 3+ rerollable. You are correct to still play the way you state if you can; however the increased odds in your favor also help you defend vs those Death Stars when you need too.

1/12 failed is a fair bit better than 1/9. And even a unit with 3+ rerollable isn't really worth engaging. It will always be too inefficient. If your plan is to beat a deathstar by engaging it, you will likely lose. The ITC missions themselves are a bigger nerf to deathstars than the nerf to invis or rerolls, IMO at least.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, I don't really care either way on Invis or the Rerolls, as I stated, the nerfs don't effect my playstyle or strategy. I just happen to think the less changes made to the rules the better.

While in general I would agree (the functional difference of those changes is very small and shouldnt change your decision making) their are definite exceptions, namely allowing templates and blasts to hit them. At first that wasn't an issue, now it is a big deal because of d-scythes and warphunters and such. The invis nerf is a big change in that respect.

The reroll nerf means that the unit goes from effectively invincible to "it will take most of the game to kill it or badly hurt it, but you can do it". And I've played enough with both nerfed and unnerfed invis that I laugh at the idea of unnerfing it.

A GBS can obliterate wolf star with the nerf to Invis .

You have msu in one corner and deathstars in the other. The maelstrom should reward lists that are able to achieve the most diverse amount of missions.

It's tricky figuring how to do that since some books are more oriented around less phases. Other than line breaker progressive objectives should only be in your DZ or No mans land, since many armies simply lack the mobility.

Having more maelstroms missions on turn 1 might make people null deploy/reserve less making it somewhat stronger going first.

I was thinking a bit last night and honestly I believe that, while Maelstrom makes games more engaging than the Parking Lot games of old, punishing armies that like to sit and shoot feels bad as well.

One of the things I like about Adepticon this year is that the missions have a mix of progressive objectives and end of game objectives. I think more events should have a mix, and that a player should have an equal shot at winning no matter which one they decide to focus on.

Yes, Maelstrom is nice because it forces people to move around and make decisions. But it really puts a lot of weight into certain types of lists and takes the power out of others. And the same goes for Eternal War Crusade/Scouring/Big Guns type games, vice-versa.

I think missions should encourage different types of lists to play differently, rather than just saying "hey make the most mobile type of MSU list if you want to win because that has the edge in most if not all of the missions". 45 Warp Spiders are extremely good in Maelstrom, but if a Tau player was allowed to Gun Line up and play towards end of game objectives? That changes the dynamic entirely.