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.
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.
Truth. I forgot about Warp Hunters. I'll say this though, I faced d-scythes numerous times with my wolfstar and they rarely did much damage (spread out) and due to darkshrouds usually got eaten up badly afterwards. Even if I were packing D, i'd be unlikely to attempt to kill the units that abuse psy powers and what not. But I guess I did overlook the D templates and the potential they have for hurting those units.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
DarkLink wrote: 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.
Meh, a 2+/4+ unit is essentially invincible, I recently played against Ravenwing and the darkshrouds/blackknights were untouchable. Enough so that it made far more sense for me to forgo shooting to get better positioning for objectives/maelstroms.
I've noticed that with nerfed invis more players are tricked into thinking they can hurt the unit and thus end up putting themselves in bad positions giving up multicharges and whatnot due to an overconfidence in their ability to deal damage.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/02/18 22:05:01
You still maneuver into good positions, but the nerf makes them significantly less survivable. In addition to outnaneuvering the units, you also have the potential to whittle the unit down over the course of the game.
Black Knights are a poor example of this since they're so cheap for their survivability, but all those deathstars that used to rely on rerollable invulns are significantly easier to handle now.
I am the Hammer. I am the right hand of my Emperor. I am the tip of His spear, I am the gauntlet about His fist. I am the woes of daemonkind. I am the Hammer.
DarkLink wrote: You still maneuver into good positions, but the nerf makes them significantly less survivable. In addition to outnaneuvering the units, you also have the potential to whittle the unit down over the course of the game.
Black Knights are a poor example of this since they're so cheap for their survivability, but all those deathstars that used to rely on rerollable invulns are significantly easier to handle now.
I guess I havent had the same experience. I find that those deathstars are essentially just as survivable. I guess it depends on what army you play, as Tau and Eldar are the only ones I see capable of whittling down those units (and vs TWC, whittling down does pretty much nothing).
Automatically Appended Next Post: We can keep beating this dead horse, but both of our experiences are just that, personal experiences. NOVA Open, so far, hasn't nerfed invis or rerolls, ill be interested to see how things shake out.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/02/18 22:37:51
Don't get me wrong, a 2/4+ is complete gak too, that shouldn't be in the game. At least not on cover and invuln saves, since they're so hard to ignore. But it does make a difference.
I am the Hammer. I am the right hand of my Emperor. I am the tip of His spear, I am the gauntlet about His fist. I am the woes of daemonkind. I am the Hammer.
Why wait for 2016 nova open
The 2015 open used the same rules and deathstars placed significantly higher won rates. The entire tournament was also won by an undefeated wolf star. Thd same exact list Aaron played at lvo and he were he was ranked 8.
Anecdotal evidence suggests that the 2+ nerf does help.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/18 23:40:14
While true, the distribution of top placings and midfield were similar. Missions help. But obviously invisible and reroll nerfs do actually nerf things.
Anecdotally, however, one of my bigger pet peeves is using event winners to evaluate the effectiveness of balance changes. It's not really relevant.
I like the idea of scoring Maelstrom objectives at the beginning of your next turn. However, the problem that I see with this is that sometimes, the 2nd player (player going 2nd) might not even get his turn due to intentional/unintentional slow-playing or time mismanagement. Now I know that it's up to the players to manage their times, but oftentimes, it is not in one player's best interest to adhere so strictly to that.
My proposal for such a case:
If both players cannot finish a game turn before the game ends, then the Maelstrom objectives won't count for both players for that turn.
Keep in mind that if, for example, there is only 10 minutes left in the game, then both players still need to split their time evenly. However, it is on Player #1 to make sure that Player #2 has time to take his 5-minutes to do his thing for both player's Maelstrom points to count that turn. Basically, this rule is to ensure that Player #2 doesn't get slow-played into not having a chance to get his Maelstrom objectives because he didn't have a turn to do anything at all.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/02/19 00:03:46
It's like playing craps. Roll a dice, see if you had your chips down on the outcome, opponent can't do anything. Masturbation, the strategy tabletop war game.
A 2++ save is basically four times as good as a 4++ save and its not like there is some reason why people will generally roll 4+ on the re roll.
I never said it was as good, I said for all intents and purposes the unit is still essentially invincible, which they are. The amount of firepower required to take down one model becomes absurd and you are unlikely to do enough damage to neuter those squads before they make it to your lines. The bigger thing keeping TWC/Seer Councils from dominating ITC are the missions and thank goodness for that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dozer Blades wrote: You should score the same turn you draw the objectives. What is so hard about that ?
Thats boring as hell and requires little strategy. There should be a chance for the other player to deny you the ability to score them. It is far more engaging that way.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/19 00:27:13
Largo39 wrote: Alternately for the last turn of the game you score on the end of turn instead of the PT of the next.
Problem is, you don't know which is the last turn of the game for sure. For some, it could be Turn 5. For others, it could be Turn 3. You kinda get screwed over if you plan for the last turn to be on Turn 4, but due to your opponent playing slow, it actually ends on 3.
your method:
t3 - t2 maelstrom scored, t3 rolled but impossible to score
vs mine:
t3 - t2 maelstrom scroed, t3 maelstrom rolled and scored as if were a current ITC game.
While it's a bit awkward to score 2 malestroms sets in a single turn, in some ways the advantage that p2 has in the normal situation is nullified because the p1 player gets to react to P2's maelstroms for turn 2 and turn 3 at once. So they could, for example, recognize that p2 is going to double up on objective A and put all their forces on it and so on. So that balances P2's advantage at being last to react to the turn 3 maelstroms.
now you're right knowing when to trigger this edge case is tricky but given the 30 minute split turn warning we already get i think it's reasonable to determine whats the "final" turn.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/19 03:57:03
There is an easy fix if you are worried about slow play costing one player his/her turn (which IMO should never happen but...)simply score as the NOVA currently scores, but points are not added to the results until the end of each game turn.
For example
t1- top player 1 rolls objective, bottom p2 rolls objective
t2- player 1 scores, roll next, bottom p2 scores, rolls next at end of turn those scores are recorded in the results.
So if a full game turn is not complete scores on that final turn don't count.
Or, alternatively, time is called, scores for player 2's maelstrom are scored, as player 1s turn is over. So if player 1 is going slow and dice down is called before they run to contest an objective, well, player 2 still gets it.
Yeah, it's a little funny that the concern here is how to make sure missions work for games that end on Turn 3 or something similarly ridiculous, or where TOs actually allow a Game Turn to start but refuse to let it end, both of which are things that should not impact mission design.
IF your approach as a TO is to allow a Game to end midway through whatever the final Game Turn is, there are some questions to be brought up regarding proper TO behavior.
If your approach to missions is to desperately try to insulate them against an unfair result from a halfway finished final turn on Game Turn 3 ... well, way off in the middle of nowhere for proper mission design considerations.
Breng's solution is a good one if for some reason your event allows players to game the situation by assuring they only get to do the top half of a final turn (I mean, seriously? When is this allowed?). You just disallow the actual accrual of the Maelstrom points if the Game Turn doesn't finish.
*Edit - Written not knowing that LVO I guess called/calls hard dice without letting Game Turns finish?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/19 14:52:18
Hoping to get some more data from FLG for a deeper dive, but it's a decent snapshot at what's going on in the competitive scene at the moment.
Great article!
Thank you for writing it, it basically mirrors my anecdotal experience as well, and every DE player I saw/played had elder allies so I tend to agree with you on that and many other points you extrapolated from the data.
I only wish I could exalt this a million more times,
Hoping to get some more data from FLG for a deeper dive, but it's a decent snapshot at what's going on in the competitive scene at the moment.
this is a very good post. I hope you can get more data points soon.
Spoiler:
Does this correct for the false filings?
For example, the top 50 Sisters list wasn't actually Sisters, but rather Salamanders. It was an error but I keep seeing statistic analysis posts not correcting for it, which leads to skewed statistics.
Edit: And I don't mean it was simply not enough Sisters in the list, I mean it literally had no Sisters in it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/20 06:59:11
That is a sweet article, thanks for making and sharing it! Would love to see a follow-up if you do get more data from Frontline
Thanks
easysauce wrote:
Great article!
Thank you for writing it, it basically mirrors my anecdotal experience as well, and every DE player I saw/played had elder allies so I tend to agree with you on that and many other points you extrapolated from the data.
I only wish I could exalt this a million more times,
Aww That's very kind, thank you.
axisofentropy wrote:this is a very good post. I hope you can get more data points soon.
Spoiler:
Thank you
Tinkrr wrote:
Does this correct for the false filings?
For example, the top 50 Sisters list wasn't actually Sisters, but rather Salamanders. It was an error but I keep seeing statistic analysis posts not correcting for it, which leads to skewed statistics.
Edit: And I don't mean it was simply not enough Sisters in the list, I mean it literally had no Sisters in it.
To be blunt, no, it doesn't. It's entirely based on the publicly available data - if something drifts by me I'll correct it, but that's it.
www.variancehammer.com - In the Grim Darkness of the Far Future, There is Only the Law of Large Numbers
My biggest curiosity is if, ITC did not rule the new Tau RAW as conservatively as they did, if Tau would have made it higher in the rankings.
From some of the lists I heard people talking about, it didn't seem like their were very many really thought out Tau lists.. mainly OSC spam; I say this because I realize this could also change things in and of itself.
Yes I am a biased Tau player that loves to see his favorite army do well at events. =D (but who doesn't?)
Grizzyzz wrote: My biggest curiosity is if, ITC did not rule the new Tau RAW as conservatively as they did, if Tau would have made it higher in the rankings.
From some of the lists I heard people talking about, it didn't seem like their were very many really thought out Tau lists.. mainly OSC spam; I say this because I realize this could also change things in and of itself.
Yes I am a biased Tau player that loves to see his favorite army do well at events. =D (but who doesn't?)
Hoping to get some more data from FLG for a deeper dive, but it's a decent snapshot at what's going on in the competitive scene at the moment.
Also props! Good write up. Well chosen charts.. having a math background, I hate when people use biased and misleading statistics. =)
I used the HC with Riptide wing. And while HC is strong its not good at what it's intended(deathstar killer) with the ultra conservative ruling. A middle option like allowing the buffs to only be used on the target unit no matter what target lock or other rules allow you to target other units would have allowed for different builds. That view only makes Riptide wing even more prevalent. I hope it can be re-voted with the conservative and middle option instead of the two extremes we had previously.
Automatically Appended Next Post: NOVA is using this version. My hope is ITC adopts it: Coordinated Firepower and Interaction with Unit-Wide Buffs - The Signature Systems and similar unit wide effects transfer via the coordinated fire rule. Unit Wide effects apply to all contributing units, however only models, or weapons in the case of Gargantuan Creatures, firing at the target of the coordinated firepower attack gain the effect of applicable buffs through coordinated firepower. As such, contributing units that make use of Target Locks or GC Split Fire rules do not gain the buffs on those shots that don’t go at the primary target.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/22 15:50:33
A few of those rulings were quite significant, particularly the drone factory. I believe JY2 did some battle reports vs that list and the drone spam tabled both a 5 Wraithknight army and a 6(?) Flyrant army, so that alone probably had a big effect on tau placing. Same with combined fire. The other items were smaller issues, though.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/22 16:12:08
I am the Hammer. I am the right hand of my Emperor. I am the tip of His spear, I am the gauntlet about His fist. I am the woes of daemonkind. I am the Hammer.
.....Bay Area Open GT 2013 - Best Tyranids 
.....LVO GT 2014 Team Tournament - Best Generals
5000pts 
6000pts 
3000pts
