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.

 Reecius wrote:
Holy crap Yakface is coming out of retirement?!?!?! Awesome!

It honestly hasn't been that big of a problem for us. The game is so fluid and things move so fast, from so many different angles that having objectives in your deployment zone doesn't mean that much anymore. Turn 1 charges are commonplace for example. I have found that objective placement just isn't as big of a deal anymore as things die so quickly and move so fast.

I understand the point but so far, it's been a non-issue.

As always though, I remain open to being persuaded.

One consideration is, 3 of the 6 deployments are much harder to measure with terrain on the board than the other 3. That's not really a balance thing just a practicality thing.

Me and a frien hav a 9" circle we got from somewhere that folds woe we use that to help

 Reecius wrote:
Holy crap Yakface is coming out of retirement?!?!?! Awesome!

It honestly hasn't been that big of a problem for us. The game is so fluid and things move so fast, from so many different angles that having objectives in your deployment zone doesn't mean that much anymore. Turn 1 charges are commonplace for example. I have found that objective placement just isn't as big of a deal anymore as things die so quickly and move so fast.

I understand the point but so far, it's been a non-issue.

As always though, I remain open to being persuaded.

Ultimately you guys gotta do you, and like I said, I'm not signed up yet and I'd only be on the waiting list, so obviously what I have to say is just one person's opinion but I wouldn't consider playing at an event that is using the book objective and deployment zone setup.

I understand that players can certainly overcome the disadvantage with skill, luck and certain (good) army builds, but that doesn't change the fact that the entire system is ridiculously unfair and swings on a single D6 roll-off.

I mean just to reiterate it again, one single D6 roll-off gives one player:

• 2-3 objectives in his deployment zone while his opponent gets a max of 1 in his deployment zone (for 4 objective marker games, with roughly the same ratio occurring for 6 a objective marker game).
• The same player gets to choose the deployment zone type that best suits his army and disadvantages his opponent the most.
• The same player gets to choose which of the 2-4 deployment zones available best suits his army (usually the one where the objectives are) and disadvantages his opponent the most (usually the one that has the fewest objectives).
• The same player gets to deploy his first unit after his opponent, thereby getting a slight advantage of seeing where his opponent is choosing to deploy his units.

I just don't see how anyone can look at that and figure that it is balanced at all for matched play. In fact, it is the opposite of balanced. The player who doesn't get all of that doesn't even get anything in return (like getting the choice of whether to go first or not). The only reason I can fathom why GW even chose to write the missions this way is because it takes up the absolute minimum space on the page.

I'm sure players can and do overcome it, but that doesn't make it any less unfair and it certainly doesn't make it not a big deal. I mean, I'm sure every now and then a good player with a good army could overcome and win a game where their opponent was allowed to deploy their army for them, but it would obviously be unfair and therefore not fit for matched play.

IMHO:

• Objective markers should be placed before deployment zone type is chosen. This is the only way to get even remotely fair objective placement.
• The player that gets to choose the deployment zone type should not be the one that gets to choose which deployment zone to take. Those are both massive advantages, so there's simply no reason the same player should get to choose both of them.

Listen to yakface, he has more credibility than me lol. And I brought this up in couple threads already.

The easy fix can also be choose deployment types and zones first than placed objectives like how it is in 7th nova/ITC format

I suppose the missions could determine placement of objectives and deployment type... Like if 4 objectives, they are in the center of each quarter and 6 objectives would be in the center of every 24"x24" section, etc. Then roll for sides.

First turn mechanics are interesting, makes me think of warhammer fantasy or 9th age which is kinda fun. I remember how in 3rd we all had to deploy heavy supports first and go from there, was unique.

I guess this BAO is going to be a huge test case, eh?

It doesn't help that the rules are contradictory. On the maps page it tells you that for matched play players MUST randomly select a map with a roll, but then all of the missions say Player X just gets to pick.

@Deshkar

Vertical combat will be sorted out, no worries. Thanks for bringing it up though.

@SonsofVulkan

We only played 2k games, for what it is worth. Beyond that I am not at liberty to disclose the playtesting process.

And yes, I know FW units haven't been released =)

8th is a blast, I suggest playing more games before judging.

NOVA is indeed playing NOVA missions, which is their choice.

The map is randomly determined too, by the way, the players don't pick it. They pick their deployment zone.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@JohnU

Yeah, the wording in the missions makes it seem like you pick but you actually don't, you pick your zone but the map is randomly determined.

Really mitigates the objective marker issue.

 Reecius wrote:
Yeah, the wording in the missions makes it seem like you pick but you actually don't, you pick your zone but the map is randomly determined.

Really mitigates the objective marker issue.

That definitely changes things quite a bit! I hadn't noticed that bit in the rules, plus a couple guys on a stream the other day definitely said that one player got to pick the deployment type (I had to go back and re-watch the stream to make sure I wasn't crazy).

BTW, great job on that stream. You guys were amazing (I watched the whole thing live), and you obviously get full passes from me for any little tidbit you may have gotten wrong, cause lord knows there's no way I could have even stood and talked continuously on camera for as long as you did, let alone be perfect rattling off a million new rules!!!

I know in the stream you mentioned maybe introducing a roll-off to determine who goes first. Is that something you're doing for the BAO?

---

Also, I do want to say that even with deployment types being randomly rolled for, having one player know they are going to get to pick their deployment zone does allow a canny player to clump the objectives in a corner knowing that they can pick a deployment zone that will be closer to that clump (if not have the clump fully in their deployment zone), while keeping their opponent as far as possible away from it.

I know you don't see it as a big deal, but is there any downside to adding one more roll-off after objectives are placed and deployment type is rolled for, to determine which player gets to pick their deployment zone? Is it just that it doesn't match what is in the rulebook?

Because I certainly can't think of any upside of having one player get to place their objectives knowing ahead of time they'll be able to choose their deployment zone (even if the deployment type is random), but I can think of unfair downsides to this method (and I can explain in detail if you'd like). So why not change it? It would be an incredibly easy fix.

So I just reread the rules. Deployment types are still randomly determined. In the left margin of pg 216 it says the player who placed the last objective rolls a dice to determine deployment type. The mission selection pages says to reference pg 216 and the mission selection only says the player who places the last objective 'determines' the mission. It's supposed to be random.

I concur with Yakface, its still a little unfair.

@Yak

Dude, I am just stoked to have you back! That's awesome.

Yes, we said the mission/map mechanic wrong, sorry. That is a very awesome change and we think it helps a ton for balance in the missions.

Glad you liked the stream and thanks for the kind words. Trying to get all the info we have out to the community to get everyone ramped up.

I am sure in the not distant future folks will ask for more traditional tournament style missions. Our goal though, was to let folks play it as it lays, so to speak, in the beginning, which would include the BAO. We are considering changing the first turn mechanic as the only change. We're waiting for more folks to actually get to play the game before deciding anything. We still have plenty of time.

What army you thinking about playing, buddy? The Kan Wall is awesome! You could bust out your old army.

@mhelm01

You are correct, sir.

I think terrain will need quite a few FAQs if the FAQ section on this board is any indication

I am in the BAO and am looking forward to getting some games in to get familiar.

This edition seems pretty exciting to me!

@Gungo

In what way? Most of it pretty clear, IMO. Any big ones?

@Uriels_Flame

Stoked to have you!

This is the organized thread of FAQs on dakka.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/727559.page
They likely explain them better then I do. However as mentioned in the charging section regarding charging a unit that has the entire level filled is one. Just as someone asked here. Probably a good read just to get ahead of any questions that may pop on during BAO.

 Reecius wrote:
@Yak

Dude, I am just stoked to have you back! That's awesome.

Yes, we said the mission/map mechanic wrong, sorry. That is a very awesome change and we think it helps a ton for balance in the missions.

Glad you liked the stream and thanks for the kind words. Trying to get all the info we have out to the community to get everyone ramped up.

I am sure in the not distant future folks will ask for more traditional tournament style missions. Our goal though, was to let folks play it as it lays, so to speak, in the beginning, which would include the BAO. We are considering changing the first turn mechanic as the only change. We're waiting for more folks to actually get to play the game before deciding anything. We still have plenty of time.

What army you thinking about playing, buddy? The Kan Wall is awesome! You could bust out your old army.

Yep, I'd be busting out my Orks and seeing what they can do as-is in a tournament before figuring out what things, if any, I'd want to add.

However, I've been pretty high on the 8e hype train, watching all your twitch streams and such and then all a sudden at the end of one of your battle reports which kind of shook me. You were responding to someone about how it seemed like most games in 8e are simply decided by one side being completely decimated and you said something along the lines of: 'that's why I've been kind of trying to explain to the people that have been worrying about objective placement, that's its really not that big a deal.'

I presume you were more or less referring to what we've been talking about, and based on the battle reports that you've done so far on Twitch, I'd pretty much have to agree: the objective placement doesn't really matter because in high-level tournament games the armies are so deadly that it most of the time comes down to one side nearly (or completely) wiping out the other side. Unfortunately, that makes me really sad about 8e.

As fun as the game may be and as many tactical options as there seem to be to kill the other side's models, I'm not really interested in playing games where the missions are really just a footnote most of the time. And while correcting the objective placement rules to make them more balanced would have been a fairly trivial fix to implement, if the design of the entire game makes missions mostly irrelevant, then that's a problem that can't really be fixed by anything except for new codexes.

So while I'm not going to throw in the towel here before I even get started trying it out myself, what you've said (and I've seen) has definitely derailed my personal hype train!

 yakface wrote:

 Reecius wrote:
@Yak

Dude, I am just stoked to have you back! That's awesome.

Yes, we said the mission/map mechanic wrong, sorry. That is a very awesome change and we think it helps a ton for balance in the missions.

Glad you liked the stream and thanks for the kind words. Trying to get all the info we have out to the community to get everyone ramped up.

I am sure in the not distant future folks will ask for more traditional tournament style missions. Our goal though, was to let folks play it as it lays, so to speak, in the beginning, which would include the BAO. We are considering changing the first turn mechanic as the only change. We're waiting for more folks to actually get to play the game before deciding anything. We still have plenty of time.

What army you thinking about playing, buddy? The Kan Wall is awesome! You could bust out your old army.

Yep, I'd be busting out my Orks and seeing what they can do as-is in a tournament before figuring out what things, if any, I'd want to add.

However, I've been pretty high on the 8e hype train, watching all your twitch streams and such and then all a sudden at the end of one of your battle reports which kind of shook me. You were responding to someone about how it seemed like most games in 8e are simply decided by one side being completely decimated and you said something along the lines of: 'that's why I've been kind of trying to explain to the people that have been worrying about objective placement, that's its really not that big a deal.'

I presume you were more or less referring to what we've been talking about, and based on the battle reports that you've done so far on Twitch, I'd pretty much have to agree: the objective placement doesn't really matter because in high-level tournament games the armies are so deadly that it most of the time comes down to one side nearly (or completely) wiping out the other side. Unfortunately, that makes me really sad about 8e.

As fun as the game may be and as many tactical options as there seem to be to kill the other side's models, I'm not really interested in playing games where the missions are really just a footnote most of the time. And while correcting the objective placement rules to make them more balanced would have been a fairly trivial fix to implement, if the design of the entire game makes missions mostly irrelevant, then that's a problem that can't really be fixed by anything except for new codexes.

So while I'm not going to throw in the towel here before I even get started trying it out myself, what you've said (and I've seen) has definitely derailed my personal hype train!

Thats why developing well balanced missions are very important!

In 7ed, my Gladius still beat a deathstar army even though I barely killed anything and lost 75% of my army all largely thanks to how that specific NOVA mission was setup.

In 8ed because of the change to the new AP system, cover, morale and etc... units do die a lot faster. But with a well-balanced mission a good player can still score enough points for a minor win or draw even if he lost 90% of his army.

Missions aren't irrelevant at all.

My point with armies obliterating one another is more in line with what will happen in the early meta.

Folks will go nuts because they can charge first turn, can deep strike without scattering, etc.

So, early on the meta will be mutual annihilation, the survivor scoops up the objectives. Where they are doesn't really matter. Plus, as things are so fast, they're rarely out of reach, anyway.

However, as players mature into the edition, you get less and less of the wipe-out games. The reason being that often the outcome of the wipe-out, brave-heart style headlong rush at one another games comes down to a luck y die roll here or there. There's less tactical choice, less player agency involved.

As you all get better, and play opponents that don't just smash one another, you will see games going the distance and the missions mattering more as people wait to let things develop before committing.

I have no doubt in my mind that within a relatively short period of time, folks will want to go back to tournament style missions. However, due to the timing of the BAO, we want folks to get a taste for the game as it is, then make choices as to how they want to modify things, if at all (but I think the missions will likely change).

I wouldn't get to bent out of shape about it, honestly. 8th is like, the golden era of 40k. No bs. You can play themed lists that are good. Everyone's going on about silly spam lists but those will largely come and go, IMO. Give the edition time, everyone is still uploading information. I think when you play it a few times, you will love it.

Check in tonight for another game for those interested!

Glad you're enjoying the games! We've got another tonight, Eldar vs. Space Wolves!

Lists here: https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2017/06/13/tuesday-night-fight-tau-vs-orks/

I'm sorry... but any tournament that allows the player placing the last objective .. the ability to pick the side is making a huge mistake.

Its an advantage no matter what anyone says. Don't kid yourself. Having played a bunch of games now.. I know it is.

Side choice should be random role of the dice.

I am pretty sure BAO will be a giant play-test to see what works or doesn't work in 8th missions and then we can probably expect a survey and options for what we'd like to see in missions going forward. Therefore, to call for the missions to be adjusted for any perceived imbalances off the bat is a bit premature at this point.

I mean, my games of 8th so far mirror Reece's findings-the placement of objectives just isn't that big of a deal. All the placement of objectives does, if anything, is dictate where the battle will be fought more fiercely and things in general are so much faster (and threat ranges for shooting attacks are greater) that getting there isn't a problem.

This also means that to account for how missions work in 8th, the meta will need to account for this on the list building level. Specifically, any perceived imbalance in the missions can generally be mitigated with list building by:
(1) taking smaller units and/or more dedicated transports to minimize the amount of units that need to be deployed to have a better odds of going first;
(2) taking some faster/mobile units to get to objectives late game.


As it stands, every army has some means of accomplishing both.

Any thought given to allowing properly based (i.e. 30mm) Secondus Marines/Adeptus Astartes being able to stand in for Adeptus Restartes/Primaris marines?

 mortetvie wrote:
I am pretty sure BAO will be a giant play-test to see what works or doesn't work in 8th missions and then we can probably expect a survey and options for what we'd like to see in missions going forward. Therefore, to call for the missions to be adjusted for any perceived imbalances off the bat is a bit premature at this point.

I mean, my games of 8th so far mirror Reece's findings-the placement of objectives just isn't that big of a deal. All the placement of objectives does, if anything, is dictate where the battle will be fought more fiercely and things in general are so much faster (and threat ranges for shooting attacks are greater) that getting there isn't a problem.

This also means that to account for how missions work in 8th, the meta will need to account for this on the list building level. Specifically, any perceived imbalance in the missions can generally be mitigated with list building by:
(1) taking smaller units and/or more dedicated transports to minimize the amount of units that need to be deployed to have a better odds of going first;
(2) taking some faster/mobile units to get to objectives late game.


As it stands, every army has some means of accomplishing both.

I don't get it mortetvie.... so what you are saying is instead of adding "a single dice roll to the game" to deal with the inbalance of the missions, its better that everyone will need to adjust the "Meta" ?! how is that even a fair way to judge the missions then ? Why not let the missions stand on their own ? you acknowledge its not a "big" deal.. but its a deal.. and we know it gets bigger as things get more competitive.

The game is new for everyone.. lets let everyone play armies of all kinds...not just ones that are built around a glaring issue of the GW missions.

 Reecius wrote:
Missions aren't irrelevant at all.

My point with armies obliterating one another is more in line with what will happen in the early meta.

Folks will go nuts because they can charge first turn, can deep strike without scattering, etc.

So, early on the meta will be mutual annihilation, the survivor scoops up the objectives. Where they are doesn't really matter. Plus, as things are so fast, they're rarely out of reach, anyway.

However, as players mature into the edition, you get less and less of the wipe-out games. The reason being that often the outcome of the wipe-out, brave-heart style headlong rush at one another games comes down to a luck y die roll here or there. There's less tactical choice, less player agency involved.

As you all get better, and play opponents that don't just smash one another, you will see games going the distance and the missions mattering more as people wait to let things develop before committing.

I have no doubt in my mind that within a relatively short period of time, folks will want to go back to tournament style missions. However, due to the timing of the BAO, we want folks to get a taste for the game as it is, then make choices as to how they want to modify things, if at all (but I think the missions will likely change).

I wouldn't get to bent out of shape about it, honestly. 8th is like, the golden era of 40k. No bs. You can play themed lists that are good. Everyone's going on about silly spam lists but those will largely come and go, IMO. Give the edition time, everyone is still uploading information. I think when you play it a few times, you will love it.

Check in tonight for another game for those interested!

Glad you're enjoying the games! We've got another tonight, Eldar vs. Space Wolves!

Lists here: https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2017/06/13/tuesday-night-fight-tau-vs-orks/

The leaks has been out since May 29th, it really doesn't take too long for competitive players it figure out which factions are the most point efficient, offensively and/or defensively effective.

For example 2 IG gun line army faced off in a mirror match, both sides bring crap tons of Conscript blobs, I guarantee you obj positions will matter!

Zed, you are welcome to your opinion. In my opinion, you are missing the points given and are operating under quite a few (potentially false) assumptions.

First of all, you are missing the point that BAO will be a test case to provide meaningful data to determine what truly needs to be changed (if anything). Therefore, tainting the data by changing the missions may not be in anyone's best interest in the long term. Now unless I am mistaken, ITC leadership has not said they refuse to adopt changes as necessary so no need to get so up in arms. BTW, are you even going to BAO?

Second of all, there are only PERCEIVED imbalances based on how people CURRENTLY are used to playing the game and build armies.

Third, the way armies are constructed now and the way units move/function means that any real or perceived imbalance is likely to be minimized or non-existent.

So don't get me wrong, I am looking forward to seeing how things develop for the competitive scene but right now it can't hurt to just test things out so we can know what and how things need to be changed.

I don't think anybody in this thread is asking FLG to create highly modified missions like NOVA is doing. If they want to use the book missions that fine, but all me and yak recommended was changing the part of the player choosing deployment zone base on who places the OBJ last.

It is a common sense suggestion....

 SonsofVulkan wrote:
I don't think anybody in this thread is asking FLG to create highly modified missions like NOVA is doing. If they want to use the book missions that fine, but all me and yak recommended was changing the part of the player choosing deployment zone base on who places the OBJ last.

It is a common sense suggestion....

exactly... its a pretty easy fix.

and mortetvie your welcome to your opinion as well. However our club has been testing out the missions for the past couple of weeks and its not PERCEIVED that the mission has a level of imbalance with the objective placement and deployment zone choosing. We have seen the imbalance. Is it game shattering ..no, am I some expert who has months of experience testing the game ?..no. But it is a problem and my experience having played NOVA and ITC missions are that both formats go out of there way to remove any Mission/Deployment and terrain imbalances.

So if you want to try to convince me that this small mechanic ... (that clearly causes some issues) is going to remain in any decent Mission pack, go ahead. I don't agree or buy it.

 mortetvie wrote:

Spoiler:

 zedsdead wrote:

 mortetvie wrote:
I am pretty sure BAO will be a giant play-test to see what works or doesn't work in 8th missions and then we can probably expect a survey and options for what we'd like to see in missions going forward. Therefore, to call for the missions to be adjusted for any perceived imbalances off the bat is a bit premature at this point.

I mean, my games of 8th so far mirror Reece's findings-the placement of objectives just isn't that big of a deal. All the placement of objectives does, if anything, is dictate where the battle will be fought more fiercely and things in general are so much faster (and threat ranges for shooting attacks are greater) that getting there isn't a problem.

This also means that to account for how missions work in 8th, the meta will need to account for this on the list building level. Specifically, any perceived imbalance in the missions can generally be mitigated with list building by:
(1) taking smaller units and/or more dedicated transports to minimize the amount of units that need to be deployed to have a better odds of going first;
(2) taking some faster/mobile units to get to objectives late game.


As it stands, every army has some means of accomplishing both.

I don't get it mortetvie.... so what you are saying is instead of adding "a single dice roll to the game" to deal with the inbalance of the missions, its better that everyone will need to adjust the "Meta" ?! how is that even a fair way to judge the missions then ? Why not let the missions stand on their own ? you acknowledge its not a "big" deal.. but its a deal.. and we know it gets bigger as things get more competitive.

The game is new for everyone.. lets let everyone play armies of all kinds...not just ones that are built around a glaring issue of the GW missions.

Zed, you are welcome to your opinion. In my opinion, you are missing the points given and are operating under quite a few (potentially false) assumptions.

First of all, you are missing the point that BAO will be a test case to provide meaningful data to determine what truly needs to be changed (if anything). Therefore, tainting the data by changing the missions may not be in anyone's best interest in the long term. Now unless I am mistaken, ITC leadership has not said they refuse to adopt changes as necessary so no need to get so up in arms. BTW, are you even going to BAO?

Second of all, there are only PERCEIVED imbalances based on how people CURRENTLY are used to playing the game and build armies.

Third, the way armies are constructed now and the way units move/function means that any real or perceived imbalance is likely to be minimized or non-existent.

So don't get me wrong, I am looking forward to seeing how things develop for the competitive scene but right now it can't hurt to just test things out so we can know what and how things need to be changed.

The player base can not agree if the player choosing the deployment type is broken or not. It's all speculation until a major 8th edition tournament provides evidence as to whom speculated correctly.

I love the idea of choosing the deployment type after objectives are placed , but I hate the randomness of it being a single roll. My recommendation is to allow players to spend command points for a bonus to that roll before rolling, but I don't think any changes should go into effect until we beta test 8th edition as is in a major tournament.

 zedsdead wrote:
I'm sorry... but any tournament that allows the player placing the last objective .. the ability to pick the side is making a huge mistake.

Its an advantage no matter what anyone says. Don't kid yourself. Having played a bunch of games now.. I know it is.

Side choice should be random role of the dice.

Alternatively you could keep it as only one roll. But have the winner place all objectives and the loser roll for deployment and pick the their zone. Doing this would almost always result in fairly even objective placement as you know any side you overload is likely going to your opponent.

Thanks for the input guys but a LOT of people are coming to the BAO playing 8th only a few times. Playing to the book makes it easier for them to upload the information.

In the many, many, many games of 8th Frankie and I have played, I can say with total honesty this objective placing and then choosing deployment zones issue has not been as big of a deal as it is being made out to be by some of you. I am not dismissing your opinions in the slightest, you are welcome to them, but for this first event, we're running with it. After people get a chance to try it in a tournament setting, we can start looking at making adjustments.

As stated, I am sure the missions will evolve, but for now, let's keep it simple and start from a baseline that is common to everyone.

So the first one to finish deployement still get to chose going first/second at BAO ?