|
|
Post by cypheon on Oct 25, 2017 16:06:07 GMT
He means you don't lose until turn 3, as after turn 3 reserve units suicide. Until then, they exist, and can still enter and affect the game.
This also means rotating mawlocs can keep you from being tabled indefinitely.
|
|
|
|
Post by mattblowers on Oct 25, 2017 16:11:38 GMT
He means you don't lose until turn 3, as after turn 3 reserve units suicide. Until then, they exist, and can still enter and affect the game. This also means rotating mawlocs can keep you from being tabled indefinitely. If that is what he means then it is a failed proposition. These are draft rules and I don't think they are changing the definition of tabling at all. Tabling: all your models on the table are destroyed. There is not indication they are changing the rule of tabling. I don't think they mean units in ongoing reserve count for this either. Also only having flyers left also counts as a tabling per main rules. |
|
|
|
Post by kazetanade on Oct 25, 2017 17:16:49 GMT
If I'm not reading your analysis wrongly, you're scoring only 1 point for main missions but multiple points for secondaries?
So the 4 main mission points are : score an objective, kill a unit, kill more units than opponent, score more objectives than opponent.
Then you have secondaries which award you 4 points total each but can be scored at the same time?
|
|
|
|
Post by mattblowers on Oct 25, 2017 20:54:26 GMT
If I'm not reading your analysis wrongly, you're scoring only 1 point for main missions but multiple points for secondaries? So the 4 main mission points are : score an objective, kill a unit, kill more units than opponent, score more objectives than opponent. Then you have secondaries which award you 4 points total each but can be scored at the same time? Yes. Secondaries are for a maximum of 4 points each. If you pick unit or character kills and kill 4 on the first turn then you can't score anymore. |
|
|
|
Post by wcgnidz on Oct 25, 2017 23:00:04 GMT
i love these missions. such a blast.
Strange fielding 19 man squauds for me to make reaper hard to score. But a fun time nonetheless.
EDIT: the game i played against orks for ex I did a batrep for running the scythed dule, was able to make a really fun list that played well. Dominated primaries with a massive end of game burst on my secondaries.
|
|
|
|
Post by able on Oct 26, 2017 0:12:07 GMT
Pretty good analysis. I don't understand what you are seeing with being tabled. The way I read it you can still get tabled and keep your points but I don't see they changed that having no models on the board means that you are not tabled. One difference I see between our approaches, I prefer to build lists that let me decide how I will score my points instead of trying to deny my opponent points. Your points of staying just under the unit numbers is a good one though. As is going all out once you pass a certain number. If you are going to take 4 characters, there is not reason not to take as many as you want. Same with mosters and 10+ wound models. My mawloc list has 8 12 wound models so I'm not too worried about it. Going too far the other way gives up kill points easily. You might give up the points for them killing 10+ wound models (to a maximum of 4 points), but if they struggle a bit to do it, I have a good shot at winning by killing more units than they do each turn for 6 points maximum. The relevant section on tabling is this one. The section in brackets is more specific than the general definition of tabling, and so takes precedence even if the intention was not to change the definition. They are significantly different. In particular, a mawloc that has been on the table but then does not unburrow is not destroyed until the end of the last battle round, so by the rules in the brackets you are not tabled until then (this definition doesn't mention models on the table at all). More commonly; an army that is wiped off the board turn 2 is not tabled if they can bring in reserves next turn by that definition, and this might be a deliberate change. As you say it is a draft, and will probably get picked up on and clarified (The addition of the words "Such as when" would suffice), but if they don't it could be a vintage cheddar level cheese for a tournament or two. The main point of the denial lists is to force the enemy into picking up recon, which forces them to deliver scoring units to you. Getting kill points is then much easier for us, so in a sense it is manipulating the scoring system to help us score more. We try to knock the enemy into our game plan, by making theirs simply not get points. |
|
|
|
Post by mattblowers on Oct 26, 2017 13:09:52 GMT
If one player is tabled (all of their models have been destroyed), the tabled player keeps .... The section in brackets is more specific than the general definition of tabling, and so takes precedence even if the intention was not to change the definition. They are significantly different. In particular, a mawloc that has been on the table but then does not unburrow is not destroyed until the end of the last battle round, so by the rules in the brackets you are not tabled until then (this definition doesn't mention models on the table at all). More commonly; an army that is wiped off the board turn 2 is not tabled if they can bring in reserves next turn by that definition, and this might be a deliberate change. As you say it is a draft, and will probably get picked up on and clarified (The addition of the words "Such as when" would suffice), but if they don't it could be a vintage cheddar level cheese for a tournament or two. Except that GW has specifically given the defintion of how and when you score a sudden death victory. It happens at the end of any turn after the first battle round in which no units are on the battlefield. Being "tabled" is slang we use that isn't part of the rule set. From the FAQ: Page 215 – Sudden Death
Change point 2 to read:
‘If at the end of any turn after the first battle round, one
player has no models on the battlefield, the game ends
immediately and their opponent automatically wins a
crushing victory. When determining if a player has any
units on the battlefield, do not include any units with
the Flyer Battlefield Role – these units cannot operate
within a combat airspace indefinitely and they cannot
hold territory without ground support. Furthermore, do
not include any units with the Fortification Battlefield
Role unless they have a unit embarked inside – even the
most formidable bastion requires a garrison if it is to
pose a threat.’ITC accepts all GW FAQs. They are modifying the rule that you auto lose if you get tabled, but that is to keep people from conceeding and play all their games out. According to them it's becoming an issue. I wouldn't count on not being tabled if you only have models in ongoing reserve. |
|
|
|
Post by cypheon on Oct 28, 2017 1:21:41 GMT
"Conceding is becoming an issue"... in a game system where turn 1 alpha strikes determine the next 5 turns? Who'd have thought?
If anything the progressive scoring method should help stop that. We'll see how it plays out though.
|
|
|
|
Post by mattblowers on Nov 6, 2017 14:56:28 GMT
I've had quite a number of the new ITC format games under my belt and a problem is beginning to show itself. While I really enjoy the missions and find them fairly good, the problem is that you can build lists that nearly auto-win you games. The primary missions are fine. It's the secondary missions where the problems begin to show. I played 2 test games this past Friday with an Astra Militarum list against the new Eldar codex. In each game I was up in primary points but fell so far behind on secondary points that we called each game on turn 3. If you can outscore objectives on your opponent and keep pace with killing units, you should be in a game. The problem was unintentional on my opponents part, but he had built a list that made 3 secondaries impossible and the rest were really difficult. His list had no 10+ model units, only 4 characters (2 which were Asurman rocking a 2++ from powers and the Avatar), only 5 units with 10+ wounds 3 of which were flyers (the other 2 wave serpents). This meant that I had no reliable secondary targets to get points from. I would need to nearly table the opponent to score max points in secondaries. With the commissar nerf, Guard is really going to struggle since they give up max points in many categories really easily.
For example: if you take a Tank Commander you potentially give 7 points up for him being killed. 1 primary for killing a unit. 1 secondary for killing a character. 1 secondary for killing a unit with 10+ wounds, and 4 secondary points (1 point for each 3 wounds taken off a Vehicle/Monster character) for killing the nominated character. That's half of total possible secondary points for killing 1 model. There is no reason to ever take a tank commander or Pask in this format unless you take a tank only army.
The problem is that certain armies can list tailor to give up virtually no points whilst others will almost always give up points easily. Tyranids will be able to do this quite easily as well (a flyrant gives up the same points as a tank commander, but a malanthrope doesn't, and dakkafexes only ever give up 1 point per turn no matter how many they kill), but I think we will find that it is actually bad for the game. You shouldn't have your chance at winning made nearly impossible simply because the build you chose gives up too many points whilst your opponents build gives up very few. Forcing tyranids to not play swarmlord and flyrants because of how many points they give up is not good for the game. If you do take the Swarmlord or a single flyrant in the current ITC format you are automatically giving your opponent 7 game points if he kills it. As we all know, if you want something dead that isn't a character that can hide, you can kill it.
TL/DR: You can list tailor so that you win based on your list not giving up points instead of how it performs in the game.
|
|
|
|
Post by No One on Nov 6, 2017 15:27:10 GMT
If you do take the Swarmlord or a single flyrant in the current ITC format you are automatically giving your opponent 7 game points if he kills it. How many points are you typically looking at by end game out of curiosity? |
|
|
|
Post by able on Nov 6, 2017 15:44:16 GMT
I've had quite a number of the new ITC format games under my belt and a problem is beginning to show itself. While I really enjoy the missions and find them fairly good, the problem is that you can build lists that nearly auto-win you games. The primary missions are fine. It's the secondary missions where the problems begin to show. I played 2 test games this past Friday with an Astra Militarum list against the new Eldar codex. In each game I was up in primary points but fell so far behind on secondary points that we called each game on turn 2. If you can outscore objectives on your opponent and keep pace with killing units, you should be in a game. The problem was unintentional on my opponents part, but he had built a list that made 3 secondaries impossible and the rest were really difficult. His list had no 10+ model units, only 4 characters (2 which were Asurman rocking a 2++ from powers and the Avatar), only 5 units with 10+ wounds 3 of which were flyers (the other 2 wave serpents). This meant that I had no reliable secondary targets to get points from. I would need to nearly table the opponent to score max points in secondaries. With the commissar nerf, Guard is really going to struggle since they give up max points in many categories really easily. For example: if you take a Tank Commander you potentially give 7 points up for him being killed. 1 primary for killing a unit. 1 secondary for killing a character. 1 secondary for killing a unit with 10+ wounds, and 4 secondary points (1 point for each 3 wounds taken off a Vehicle/Monster character) for killing the nominated character. That's half of total possible secondary points for killing 1 model. There is no reason to ever take a tank commander or Pask in this format unless you take a tank only army. The problem is that certain armies can list tailor to give up virtually no points whilst others will almost always give up points easily. Tyranids will be able to do this quite easily as well (a flyrant gives up the same points as a tank commander, but a malanthrope doesn't, and dakkafexes only ever give up 1 point per turn no matter how many they kill), but I think we will find that it is actually bad for the game. You shouldn't have your chance at winning made nearly impossible simply because the build you chose gives up too many points whilst your opponents build gives up very few. Forcing tyranids to not play swarmlord and flyrants because of how many points they give up is not good for the game. If you do take the Swarmlord or a single flyrant in the current ITC format you are automatically giving your opponent 7 game points if he kills it. As we all know, if you want something dead that isn't a character that can hide, you can kill it. TL/DR: You can list tailor so that you win based on your list not giving up points instead of how it performs in the game. In danger of sounding smug when I say told you so...  On the other hand, calling the game turn 2 is premature I think, because you can get 4 points extra from objectives and 8 secondary points from map control if you are doing ok. Trading equally in terms of kill points but controlling the map can get you even without considering the special primary and giving up all your secondaries. The system is designed for to have late game be a big thing, with two 100 point armies able to grab as many points turn 6 as the full armies turn 1. Recon, Behind enemy lines, and headhunter are the only ones you can rely on, with headhunter always being difficult. Map control can get you 8 out of 12 secondary points. Giving up points on the other objectives are mostly avoided by not being too spammy, though kingslayer is a little broken. It shuts down tank commanders and tyrants hard, unless you are ok with giving up 4VPs. Should probably be per 4 wounds on monsters/vehicles, so you basically cannot get max if you go for it. Regular guardsmen squads are actually pretty good. A commissar still gives them decent leadership, and at only 9 models a squad they don't give up reaper. 3 baneblades might give up titan slayer, but are pretty safe otherwise. The biggest issue is that they are lots of units, so give up kill points, but backloaded firepower makes them a threat till they are taken off the board. I've yet to convince my group to try them out, but from theorycraft it looks a completely different game, with very different list building trade offs. I think you probably called it too early to see how it is supposed to work. |
|
|
|
Post by mattblowers on Nov 6, 2017 16:09:53 GMT
If you do take the Swarmlord or a single flyrant in the current ITC format you are automatically giving your opponent 7 game points if he kills it. How many points are you typically looking at by end game out of curiosity? Max points points is 36. 12 primary points (killing 1 unit and scoring/contesting 1 objective per turn), 12 bonus primary points (1 per turn for killing more units that your opponent and 1 per turn for holding/contesting more objectives), and 12 points secondary (maximum of 4 for 3 chosen secondaries). You should be able to score for 1 kill and 1 objective per turn (if you can't do that, your list needs retooled or designed to nearly guarantee a bonus point per turn). That's 12 points there IF your game goes all 6 rounds which you won't if your opponent is playing a spam list. You need to be able to kill more or hold more objectives for at least half the turns. That gives you 15 points for average play on primaries. This means that if your opponent has built a list that denies you all but 3-4 secondary points you are sitting on 18-19 points for the game if things went as you planned AND it went 6 turns. Most games don't go 6 rounds in most of the tournaments I have played so I think you need to plan on being able to score mid 20s in 4 rounds to ensure a win. You are only getting 12 points total for primary if you scored a bonus point in half the rounds and all the non-bonus primaries, which means you need 10+ points on secondaries. So if your opponent built a list to deny you points, you are out of the contention in 1 game. For point of reference 17 points is the lowest point total I have seen win a game in 4 rounds, and it put the winner a half game in points behind a normal points winner. |
|
|
|
Post by mattblowers on Nov 6, 2017 16:20:05 GMT
In danger of sounding smug when I say told you so... In deed you did tell me. That was mistype, it was turn 3. We were playtesting for tournaments, so this is something we normally do. You can get in 2x the number of games and get more experience in. The second game we played out after we called it and the results didn't change any. Agree on all these points. Map control is harder than you think in a couple of the missions. The one with only 2 objectives it's UNITS within 9" of objective and ObSec doesn't count. All guardsmen squads have 10 models so they give up 4 points easily. Overall they are very good. They give a big advantage to elite armies and they actually give a tactical advantage to going second which is nice. The secondaries need tweaked so things like flyrants and tank commanders don't put you such a big hole. |
|
|
|
Post by gigasnail on Nov 6, 2017 16:21:36 GMT
They're aware of the 7 point tank commander/flyrant issue, expect it to be addressed.
|
|
|
|
Post by able on Nov 6, 2017 18:42:01 GMT
8 guys and a heavy weapon team makes 9. Unless they changed it in the codex, you exchange 2 models for 1 when you take a HWT. You certainly can take them without, but makes a big difference in this case. I've seen people with single guys with heavy weapons, but that is not how the index has them (not checked the codex). Also worth thinking about is taking a mortar and removing it first if you expect heavy casualties. Morale only cares about models, so removing it instead of 2 guardsmen can change a morale squad wipe into leaving 2 guys left. |
|
