Good Morning All,
One of the things we've noticed and heard about in playtest is the impact of the new Scoring/Denial unit rules, and Flyers/faster moving units, on how we work our Quarters Mission.
Beginning players tend to initially think that Quarters plays like Fixed Objectives (where one is in each quarter of the board). As people become more veteran with the best / most effective way to play the mission, they realize it's the most "engagement"-encouraging mission, as controlling the center of the board with large numbers of Points is the best way to ensure a win (and not a tie), giving you the ability late in the game to shift points to ANY quarter, instead of just to one or two (if you are backboarded, or segmented into board quarters).
The Primer contains a rules change that does a couple of things:
1) In line with the new 6th Ed book, only Scoring and Denial units count toward the Quarters goal
2) In select missions, the Quarters goal is modified along the lines of Big Guns Never Tire, and the Scouring, so that FA/HS will occasionally COUNT as Scoring for purposes of the Quarters Goal
This means that in general, vehicles of any sort do NOT count toward Quarters. This reflects the changes of 6ed as a whole, but it may also impact things TOO much.
Here are my big issues where we don't want to see Quarters as a goal change from the primer:
1) Flyers won't count for scoring in Quarters (unless you're in the Scouring or Big Guns Quarters variants, and have FA/HS flyers)
2) Emphasis placed on board control, engagement, while still being "tie"-able if you're outmatched on the mission by an inferior opponent with a better mission-tuned list
Inputs ahoy ... the only permutation I'm looking strongly at right now is simply ruling that Flyers and Vehicles [and Monstrous Creatures?] moving 13+" net in the turn (so counting run move) do not count for Quarters (so hovering flyers could count, transports/etc. could all count, but none of them could count if they moved flat out, zoomed, etc.). It could be simplified to simply be that Flyers do not count for purposes of the Quarters mission.
Do note, for newer input givers, EVERYTHING has always counted for the purposes of the Quarters goal, and this is a HUGE balancer on the mission combo. So, permitting all but Flyers would still be more restrictive than historically. One of my concerns in terms of gameplay and mission balance, is preventing a situation where it is tactically "wise" to run all your flyers off the board on Turn 4, and simply "zoom" all your points to whatever quarter(s) you want from off-board (aka in a way your opponent can't anticipate or play to handle) on Turn 5.
Input welcome!
PS - Looking at removing Warlord Traits from the Primer as well.
PPS - Looking at possibly going with 5e Spearhead Deployment instead of Hammer and Anvil. If we stick with modified Hammer and Anvil, reserves will arrive along short edge, and outflankers will be determined by long edges.
Shooting from the hip here.
ReplyDeleteThe emphasis on quarters feels like you are dictating a play style. (remember from the hip) And seem to favor the a scenario of deathstars meeting in the middle of the table.
Kudos for replacing Hammer and Anvil
Boo on removing Warlord Traits
I agree with the idea that Zooming fliers don't count towards quarters totals. Without a NOVA FAQ flier are all pro and no con.
PS <3 FAQ <3
PPS Keep up the good works, you and your team have a very difficult task
I say keep Hammer & Anvil with the reserves coming in as you noted.
ReplyDeleteI say keep the rulebook denial/scoring criteria but don't make troops worth full points when under half strength. If you change the rule back to only flyers don't count you change the way transports seem to be designed to work with 6th. i.e. not a scoring bunker anymore.
I'm cool with removing warlord traits. I'd also be cool with roll one d6 and pick from any table with that number. Not a huge deal to me though since Warlord traits are so random anyway.
we played the roll two dice and pick one for warlord. it worked out well.
DeleteI feel like much in this post is removing too much of 6th Edition. If you are gonna change all of these things then you should have stuck with 5th Edition and waited until next year to go with 6th when you knew more about it.
ReplyDeleteIt's a new rule set so things possible in 5th won't be viable or worth it in 6th. Keep as much of 6th Edition intact as possible. Vehicles are not scoring or denial and Flyers cannot be scoring or denial (but contents they drop out can be). Even in those special missions where FA and Heavy can score Vehicles still cannot.
I'm also starting to think that Killpoints being a game objective is not really part of 6th. Only ONE book mission uses them (which nerfs KP Denial lists) so why should it still be so important in NOVA? Part of the NOVA mission set up is based off of the 3x3 game set-ups. That's not around any more so maybe the whole NOVA objectives need to be made to fit into 6th, not the 6th Edition objectives made to fit NOVA.
"Even in those special missions where FA and Heavy can score Vehicles still cannot." - Sorry, this is completely wrong. Please go to the relevant BRB pages and you will see.
DeleteAs for changing NoVa more than changing 6th - it's a bit logistically impossible, I'd say, to massively overhaul the entire event with 41 days to go - especially when most (all?) attendees have already paid...
Echoing the others here, keep it so that scoring and denial are as in the rulebook, no weird movement qualifiers/etc. If you're a vehicle/flier, you can't score/deny, and that's just how it is. I've actually liked that change to 6th thus far and felt it made the games much less "scoring box oriented" then they were.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I don't think troops need to be worth full points when under half strength, I never really got the point of that however...
Warlord traits I'd like to see left in as well, I don't feel they effect the game much and they're "part of" 6th that's easy to leave in. I wouldn't miss them much if they were gone, but I also don't see why they'd need to go.
And modified hammer and anvil has been/was fun when I played it, it punishes super short range armies a bit, but they need that balancing factor (imo).
I also feel the real danger in all this is removing too much of the 6th edition rules. We don't know how the game will change in a years time, but if you start eliminating "things" that feel unfair etc now it could upset "things" down the line very drastically in a worse way.
ReplyDeleteLess is more.
Flying MC's should count. The are not vehicles, they cannot transport troops, They can be your HQ, and others that are not classified as flying MC's do the same thing ( will these also not count? )example: Necron Veil, gate of infinity. Again if you eliminate to make things fair that is outside the 6th ed rules you are robbing from one to pay the other.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteGood feedback so far, and exactly the kind I like to see!
DeleteSome of the pushback here came from feedback on its own, so it's good to see the other side of the coin.
Sam - Mission design has always been the prerogative of tournaments to some degree (going back at least as far as 3e), with almost none ever running "book" missions directly. In 4e especially (as an example), book missions were largely ignored, b/c of the craziness some components instilled.
Our primary design goal for this year is to keep things true to the influencing changes of 6th, but not to give up what is a proven, fair tournament format in cases where new and/or optional rules are square pegs to the round hole of a tournament setting (i.e. mysterious terrain). It brings up another subject that I'll hit in another blog post (the reality that even games like Baseball, Football, etc., were never originally designed for competitive or tournament play, and the modern rules are the result of league and tournament organizers adapting them to the extent required for that environment).
The long and short is, there are components of the missions that are incompatible with a tournament setting (i.e. Fortress of Redemption) for reasons ranging from logistics to a level playing field. Those components are the ONLY ones we put much focus / target on as far as activities like streamlining are concerned.
As an addendum, the ONLY thing I'll remind, as I did in the originanl post, is that Quarters as a goal has and will continue to work very well in conjunction with the other ones we operate, in playtest and otherwise ... and has been a goal where ALL units counted Points-wise toward Quarters in 5e, despite the fact that only Scoring units could cap objectives. So, following the book strictly on what can ever "capture" things is already a change to the balance impact of Quarters. That's why we're looking at it from all angles, here. Properly balanced for the game rules as a whole, it's a very good goal ... but it worked not b/c we copied the book emphasis on what units could capture objectives (Quarters are NOT objectives), rather b/c we balanced things toward the emphasis implied with the rules themselves.
The scoring/denial impact of 6th is already reinforced to the extent that it naturally is in the book by having our Objectives goal follow it to a T. That's to say, reinforcing it "doubly" by restricting Quarters scorers to the book limitations isn't necessarily following 6e at all, so should be looked at from both angles in that regard.
Finally, we've taken a look for sure at doing something like Victory Points or simplified VP (i.e. VP levels = x points each) as a replacement for KP margin.
What's important to note is that in all but one of our missions, KP Margin will be the THIRD goal most likely, thereby effectively resulting in the 1/2-as-often occurrence of KP seen in the changes to the book missions.
As a final addendum - the Book Missions this time in the Eternal War scenarios are NOT straight tourney missions; in 5e, unlike 1-4e's, they changed to much simpler and more straightforward missions, which were much more "event-ready" with minimal tinkering. Rest assured we're incorporating as much of the meta-adjustments as reasonable, without succumbing to the kneejerk of - for the first time in a major tournament ever - giving up mission design for tournament play entirely to randomized book missions. There's a fine line to walk, especially this early on, in terms of understanding where to go and why.
I keep having additional thoughts here ... so good on all for the convo generation ...
Another note of merit is that people are NOT figuring out 6e at a rapid pace, among the blogosphere as a general rule. What does and doesn't work, and why, is going to take time to develop independent of NOVA. You're seeing a lot of 5ed+flyers/allies lists right now, and far less of ... lists that will be good in the matured edition.
Hi Mike,
DeleteI realize that in 5th all units counted towards quarters. But to i interpretted that in that all units could contest or controll objectives in 5th. So I guess we had a breakdown on that one on a basic level. And with that I feel that only units that can "hold or deny" actual ground should be counted towards scoring on quarters. That's my reasoning for it. But do drop the troops under 50% count as full cause looking at a few of my lists that's broken as all hell.
And I'll second that most of the internet is grasping slowly toward 6th. Hell I am too. I've only gotten half a dozen games in due to real life so far and I'm still very much playing with things.
And lastly I'll second taking as little out of 6th as to have the tournament be fuctional. Let's play with the rule before we start tweaking (exclusions apply like mysterious terrain).
I disagree totally with table quarters as it is for 6th edition and the Nova. How many armies can take 75 percent of a 2000 point army list on foot and hope to be effective? Because any type of dedicated transport which is purchased from a troop slot doesn't count as a victory point when totalling quarters, or 1 paladin counts as 500 points, or 1 deathwing terminator is 265 points, is my reasoning. Last year when I played Alex Fennel in the invitational he had 4 models left on the table and I barely won with approximatley 1,000 of 1,750 points left. Another game at the GT 1 purifier going to ground was worth nearly 300 victory point? This is a little excessive with now only scoring/denial units counting as table quarters. I believe 6th doesn't have quarters for a reason. In addition, an actual victory point mission is to determine how many points of your army can stay alive to accomplish a certain task. I don't see how quarters can properly function in 6th unless all models count towards a quarter.
ReplyDeleteEither way I will be there with bells on.
I'm strongly leaning toward removing the under-half component for Scoring Units, based on other potential changes (i.e. only scoring/denial counting).
Delete6th Edition's rules flatly tell you that spamming firepower tanks is better in that they'll shoot until they're dead, but worse in that every one you have is less models that can actually take or deny objectives. That HAS to be highlighted in the missions one way or another, or we're not reflecting the design intent of the new edition.
It's simply a matter of figuring out exactly how to do it.
Will keep thinking about this, but my gut shot reaction to the Quarters mission as this conversation is going is this:
ReplyDelete1. Agreed with the concept of others that if Vehicles will not count, that scoring units no longer need the boost to always be full points.
The reason goes to the idea of defeating your lesser opponent with a superior army build for the mission. If you are a vehicle MSU player, which I will define arbitrarily for the purpose of this discussion as having cheap, minimal foot units with lots of vehicles, I would want for it to be an out for me to kill my opponent's larger units to half or below to basically make them "equal" mine in points. Then we are on even footing for greater tactical play. If I don't have that option, having to instead focus till a unit dies because he's worth full points all the time, and in some cases, like Spag is using as an example, a very large amount of points, that can strip that option away in some match-ups.
Plus, it at least puts a small damper on the 'run away!' strategy that can be kind of offensive to a lot of people.
2. It really feels like "comp" to say that some vehicles are worth points and other aren't. (The FA/HS scoring is more "ok" to me because it's not always present, and of course, it's a book mission anyways.) I realize that Flyers are a very special case, have a huge impact on the current game, and desperately need some attention in terms of counters, but it still feels like if you let ground vehicles score and not Flyers it could be easily construed as "flyer armies not welcome here".
Likewise, the hover rule feels like "comp" as well. Necron players will be very upset if Imperial Storm Ravens, Vendettas, and Talons can score points, but their Scythes cannot due to not having the Hover rule. As an aside, I also realize that Scythes get a HUGE advantage being able to move 36 inches and deposit a unit, but also, they get a HUGE disadvantage for never being able to embark on Scythes and not be able to Hover to counter-act that in the rules already.
------------------
As to Warlord traits,
Part of feels like it's easy to shoot from the hip and say "we should do what 6th says", but I am curious how many change that turn when they lose a game @ NoVA because they got a crappy trait while their opponent got them a trait that won them the game. :p
In the end, I would leave them in just for PR reasons and let people figure out for next year that maybe they aren't so cool, if they really aren't.
-----------------------------
As to Hammer/Anvil,
no opinions here yet.
I agree I had questions about why a scoring unit with only one model left got full VP for Quarters, I was going to link the post, but cannot find it in Blackmoor's posts off hand where his list, with IIRC, 8KP and that huge Paladin squad being the 800 point "swing vote" as long as one of them survived was written for the KP/Objectives/Quarters tournaments.
ReplyDeleteSeriously, despite ways to handle many deathstars, the IG Blob with Fearless/ATSKNF + Stubborn support is going to be a royal pain in the rear to kill, even if you can deny it taking an objective. Even using my wimpy 550 point version, you will have to kill 57+ models to end its "threat" of holding a quarter. One Paladin out of ten worth ~800 points was kinda okay, but one lasgun Guardsman out of 57 is worth 550, or more!
My preference for quarters was to let the scoring/denial units act at full VP and all others act at half VP. Again, I don't care, my list likes the way it is right.
PS--I preferred the idea of roll D6 and pick which one of the three you wanted, but I don't think I've used any of them, even when I should have.
PPS--The modified should be fine.
I'll note that the Fortress will probably not be a problem by next NOVA as various factors work their way through the learning curve. The easiest way to field them now would to have a preset number of terrain pieces on the board for placement and run it just like the BRB, including having a couple of tall BLOS terrain pieces...
Why are people even considering changing the rules even more now? This is the very reason Games Workshop ended support for the tournament circuit in the first place and why Games Workshop has not agreed with the notion that "tournaments" support and help build the hobby. TO's take their GW's rules edit, cut, delete and or change what they and a few others don't like or "believe" to be unbalanced based on theorycraft. Changing how the game is meant to be played. The stat monkeys and combo cretin's just need to learn how to play. You all talk about death stars, blobs, and power units; thats what soft scores are for. Anyone that has had the joy of attending the old GW Grand tournaments will understand. "Was the army fun to play", "Does the army have a theme", "Does the army try to benefit from loop holes in the rules" etc. etc. etc. Seeing those types of questions in the pre-packets killed most shenanighans and I never heard anyone say "I hope I don't get paired against that army". Any rule that would effect the predetermined game table such as terrain should be reasonably amended ie no fortress. Vehicles can not score or deny( unless its a Grey Knight walker with the proper grand strategy) so I'm not sure what the fuss about flyers and quarters is? Over the last three months I've spent weekends at the Memphis bunker playing pickups, and campaign games. None of the rules from mysterious terrain, to warlord traits provided any unfair advantage. Nova, being the first major event to use 6th edition has a golden opportunity to set precedence and send a message to GW. Play the game as is...see what happens...then adjust. The rest of North America will follow suit.
ReplyDeleteOh, you mean the tournaments where I might as well not go or have to pay someone to make up my deficiencies as a painter? Or the issues with model building and painting that my disability can cause? The ones where if you actually play by the rules, you can be penalized because you used a "loophole" that is there because GW & its policies screwed up, right?
DeleteReal life: GW is a model company that wants you to buy their models & their paint...oh and they happen to publish some rules for a game too.
If GW really cared, we'd still be seeing White Dwarf issues telling us how to scratch build a tournament legal Land Raider or how to papercraft models, right?
1) 3 Months? 6th has been out 3 weeks. Was that just a slip?
Delete2) If you think Flyers are balanced, you aren't paying attention.
3) If you think GW writes balanced rules, and they DON'T need fixing, you're not paying attention.
@Algesan...GW GT's had a set point value for painting, 3 colors and bases flocked got you max points. Mabe you forgot or never attended; you could get an additional 3 pts if the judges really liked your army and 1 or 2 points if you typed up a background for the army. So painting skill really didn't matter, thats what Gamesday Golden Daemon was and still is for. And by the way, GW removed a players overall win and banned him from future events if it was later found out that he didn't paint his own army after he told the judges he did.
DeleteAs for loopholes it was real simple "If it isn't in the rule book, you cant do it" there wasn't any inference or "I think this is what GW meant to do", or "we'll do it this way because we don't understand this".
People that tried that were penalized; end of conversation get ready for the next round.
Yes, GW is a business, a powerfully successful BUSINESS! They care about the hobby because the HOBBY makes them money and keeps them in business. That being said... 256 ppl over four days, you think they are paying attention? Streamline for Gt play... don't change. I think it would be cool for the Nova to be an actual GW GT, 400+ pages of interpretation because you think you know more than the creator is ridiculous not to mention insulting. Hope that doesn't happen for 6th ed.
@Prometheus...yes three months I've been playing long enough(since 1991) and know enough people to see that GW was moving towards streamlining. You take the rumors and "opinions" that match rules in existing game systems ie random charge distances, impact hits, challenges, mysterious terrain and play and wait.(Hmmmm everything that the latest edition of fantasy has) Rulebook drops and most of it is no surprise
Flyers...Pay attention to what? I've read the rules, have you? And I mean read the entire section from beginning to end, not jumping around from paragraph to paragraph. flyers without hover have to "zoom" ie move a minimum of 18" or crash and they get one "up to 90 degree turn before they move. JUST GET OUT OF THE WAY LOL; unless its in a turret or on a sponson each weapon is considered hull mounted with a 45 degree firing arc. Get out of the way buddy, move behind solid cover it will spend 2 turns trying to turn around or fly off the table and come in using ongoing reserves. If it has Hover and uses it... SHOOT IT DOWN ex. 2000pts Bt's vs.Orcs; no forts vs. 2 dakka jets. I lost 1 dreadnaught and 2 marines to flyers in a 6 turn game by "moving out of the way" I dropped the dread in his deployment to clear 13 boys off his objective cleared the boys and had my butt facing the short edge when the planes showed up he was able to postion 1 to unload on me. his fly by put 3 marines in view, 2 died out of 10...I'm cool with that.
If I'm not mistaken, this game is about warfare in the 41st millennium. At what point in history did warfare become balanced? If you want balance play Chess, play Checkers, play Warmachine and depend on dice rolls. Improvise...Adapt...Overcome
Find an army that you like, get the models that you like, and learn to win with it.
Also, thanks to both of you for replying to my post, best wishes and I hope you both have the greatest of times at the Nova.
Lord, have you been to the NOVA? Just curious.
DeleteSportsmanship is one of the things we've been able to have incredibly high experiences of as a result of the format and presentation of the event (85% of attendees rated it the best sportsmanship they'd experienced at a tournament). As to the other points, GW always created its own unique missions and scoring and formats for tournament play also - it wasn't a "prepared" game out of the rulebook ever for that.
We're not trying to change anything, but going back to the chipmunking ways of being able to score whether you thought your opponent's list was cheesy and similar ... is definitely not going to happen. We want to have people treating each other with MORE respect, not less, nor do we want people "guessing" at what they hope is both competitive enough and "cool" enough in the eyes of the random opponents they'll face.
@lord
DeleteJust a heads up but you're incorrect regarding the paint scoring at GT's. Later GT's (like 2007/2008) did have a set painting score but it was far from automatic. Previous years painting mattered enormously as it was generally one of the deciding factors actually.
@MIKE...Have I been to the Nova? HMMMMM lets see. I drove through a hurricane and convinced two others to drive through said hurricane to attend even though they read somewhere about the previous Nova being chock full Min/Max, net list, rules lawyers that were more concerned with competive edge than an enjoyable game. Then I had them read a post on what the Nova was striving to be, and the type of event it was meant to be. I'm also the guy that convinced his buddy not to run Eldar even though it was a competively superior list but run his guard list, not a leaf blower or Valk spam but his hodge podge of units that he liked and his matching shirt. Besides, his Cobra guard army looked cool as hell and playing against units with the old school names and look is fun. Needless to say I think he did pretty well overall. Simply put it all depends on what your looking for out of the hobby so no we don't "guess" at anything, we pick an army we like because of fluff or theme and learn to win with it making great friends and aquaintences along the way because thats what the hobby is about. It's not about steamrolling or alpha strikes or the myriad of other colorful phrases that tend to accompany tournament play. I've always held the opinion that good games are won or lost on the last turn by a dice roll and it's always better to lose with an army you enjoy playing than one that statistically should have won.
DeleteI was asking genuinely, not as a challenge. I'm quite glad you've been! It makes your honest opinion even more valuable than it already was to me.
DeleteI personally play and list build in the way you just described; and, yes, that's the sort of thing the NOVA is striving for.
Warlord Traits add little or nothing to (my experience of) the game, and just slow it down with an unnecessary additional step.
ReplyDeleteLocal events in 5th with Quarters counted all units except Dedicated Transports as 1, and Troops doubled to 2. Rather than having VPs, perhaps consider this system as a baseline to prevent the shenanigans mentioned above?
(I have no doubt it crossed your mind, but if it doesn't appeal I haven't seen you say why not.)
I'd not allow Flyers to count at all, for balance reasons.
Too much spam encouragement. 10 Paladins are worth 2 points ... 18 acolytes in total are worth ... 12?
DeleteMike,
ReplyDeleteAfter having played the Primer missions a number of times, including last weekends Nova Prep tournament, I think the missions were pretty solid as you currently have them. Overall, I feel keeping as close to 6th edition as possible is best if for no other reason then it is what people are trying to learn at the moment, drastic changes for the tournament won't help. My observations/suggestions are below:
Warlord Traits: Minimal impact on the game, easy enough to figure out. I say keep it in there as the rulebook states or you currently have it.
Table Quarters: Obviously the mission itself has to stay, but what about the parameters? I say keep it as it is with Scoring/Denial units counting. This obviously means that vehicles do not count for quarters (except HS/FA in Big Guns/Scouring). To make this "fair" to the flyer using cry-babies (I kid), if units are below half strength let them count for half-VPs for Quarters. I think it is simple, clean, and "balances" things a bit without tipping the scale back the other way.
Additionally, I think it is fine to say the Zooming flyers do not count for Quarters even in Big Guns/Scouring missions. Necrons cannot complain, because they can Zoom and still drop of a unit to count towards Quarters. It will eliminate the reserve shananigans.
Modified Hammer and Anvil: I think it is fine to keep. It works well and did not cause any issues at the tournament. Just change the Outflank table edges to the short edges like you suggested, as I was forced to walk around when I came in from his side.
VPs or KPs? I don't care. I have to kill units either way. Only thing is though, what would be your tie breaker than?
Kudos,
Gramps
Played a solid number of games with the new system now. My Friend and I have been going crazy almost every night playing book missions, then primer missions when they were released.
ReplyDeleteOur thoughts so far:
Warlord Traits are a fun addition, rolling on 2 charts and picking 1 of 2 rolled works out well. Sometimes one person would get something useful, sometimes not. But from what we've looked at, there is nothing overwhelmingly game breaking in those traits, so keep them.
Modified Hammer and Anvil was nothing but an annoyance. We have absolutely hated playing the Hammer and Anvil deployment, mainly due to the fact that shooting armies gain a huge advantage in having more room to simply back up and shoot. My buddy was the one that complained about it first and he was the one that shot my necrons off the board lol. His main complaint: he honestly felt that the mission deployment gave him the win...
As for scoring, multiple armies have rules for making special things count as scoring that normally wouldn't. GK's can nominate D3 units and make them scoring as though they were troops. I personally don't feel that flyers should be scoring/denial at any point, but it wouldn't be fair to guard mech lists in a mission that states that Heavy's are scoring to not let their tanks be scoring. If not scoring, at least let them be denial units.
And as for everybody flaming and raging about changing the rules: GW Did not write this rulebook for tournaments. Therefore, TO's will need to make adjustments to the rules to allow for fair and sportsmanlike play. The rules GW writes are nowhere near simple, and in many places contradict themselves. This has been the way for GW tournaments since they started. EVEN WHEN GW RAN THEIR OWN CIRCUIT!!!!
The reason GW stopped supporting the tournament circuit isn't because of rules adjustments (most of which turned into the official FAQ). It is simply because the board of directors saw supporting the tournament scene as throwing away money.
/rant
DeleteWell I have played 12 games using the primer now with a variety of lists using the primer rules as they are.
ReplyDeleteThe only true concern I am seeing with the mission layouts as they are is having scoring units count for full VP even when only a single man remains. It gives to much bonus to armies who can sink a massive amount of points into very difficult to eliminate units and penalizes armies that take alot of transports.
All of my games used the same list to give me an idea what disadvantages the scenarios provided, due to the large amount of non scoring/non-denial units I fielded I was having even a difficult time pulling a draw on the table quarters missions due to the focused use of transports. In the scouring and big guns rules it helped some but then the opponent was still ahead by that point gain.
Flyers as they sit right now, although fast are not exceedingly maneuverable as they can only pivot once up to 90 degrees before they move which with a minimum move of 18" makes it difficult in the last turn unless positioned where they need to be to make that dash for the table quarter they need. Same applies to flying monstrous creatures to a degree.
Hola.
ReplyDeleteLots of inexperienced players talking like this is 5th edition.
It's not.
Vehicles play like this is 3rd edition.
Except, it's not just Eldar that get a free pass.
Not only is it every vehicle in the game that can move much farther than before, but there are vehicles that are essentially immune to shooting if they survive to game-end...and many of those flyers can (and indeed, should!) carry scoring units.
Most of those same units can bomb objectives. Which you can then run onto. When you really look at things, here's what you'll run into:
Necrons invasion beaming onto objectives.
Marines dropping Terminator based characters with tacticals out of gunships to secure objectives.
Guard dropping mortar squads (yes, you heard me right, useless mortar teams) out of Vendettas to secure objectives.
See, you get out, then you run. You care about shooting more than getting the big base into range of an objective? Really? It's not like a Rhino nearby can just sit there and prevent you from taking it, and the guys inside can't assault you until it's too late. Sure, shoot my IG. I'll go to ground, and are games of 5th so old you can't recall what it's like trying to shoot them off? How about if a Lord Commissar with a cloak is on that unit?
If you enjoy losing to swarms of space marines who jump out of transports (combat squad! yay two objectives! potentially how far apart? do the math, it's crazy) when going second and laugh at your guys as the game ends, because you couldn't stop them from zipping around the board waiting for a chance to disembark, well, allright, please try the above.
Learn the ongoing reserves shenanigans. I can zoom on and off all day, never getting shot once, simply by parking myself properly in a corner--you know, those places you can rarely fire to. Know what's really sick? For 300 points in an IG list, I can pretty reliably seize two objectives anywhere on the board. If I can hit pintpoint targets, surely, I can drop on table quarters and get scoring units where needed. If it's scouring (favors IG) or big guns (favors marines) I get a bonus in that my flyers also score for me. Double win!
It's inherently bad for tournaments to have games where opponents not only choose not to do battle, but it is inherently the best possible move to win.
Your comments are similar to ones I thought of months ago, so kudos on that. I then played games where the other guy just shot me off objectives or out of quarters while his reserve infantry units flew and hid from me. I did not expect the Necron invasion beams to be so broken, but they are--and if you think it's fun trying to kill a single monolith hiding a single guy in the freaking corner before the flyers arrive from reserve and start playing hide-and-seek, you've got another thing coming.
If you move 6-12" faster than you ever could before, do you really want to lose games solely because the other guy went second and had a flyer automatically enter from reserves and pigeon drop some guys out?
I assure you, that will happen every single time.
You think close combat is slow? Wait till turn 5 when people are figuring out the math on how to win. It's terribly dull.
Cloaks no longer work like that on Commissars, check the FAQ. :p
DeletePrinciple is sound.
As loath as I am to change the core rules I agree with flyers never counting. Ongoing reserve shennagins can really make things dumb. Its hard enough to protect objectives from disembarking troops drom flyers, but their isnt anything tbat can really be done to protect a quarter. Until they get more interceptors interceptors in the game playing around flyers is going to be tough.
ReplyDeleteGlad to hear you are rethinking warlord traits. Im not opposed to leaving them in, but I would avoid heavily the roll twice rule change.
Personally I would much prefer spearhead rather than the hammer and ancil deployment. Anytime you play with short table edges like that it has a nasty tendency to make some armies completely useless. Assault based armies have at least 12" more ground to cover and with more room to back up that tends tol leave at least two turna os shooting more than normal. .ow since you post the missions ahead of time their could be very little complaints since you k.ow what you are gettinf into...but IMO spearhead offers more army varity.
As loath as I am to change the core rules I agree with flyers never counting. Ongoing reserve shennagins can really make things dumb. Its hard enough to protect objectives from disembarking troops drom flyers, but their isnt anything tbat can really be done to protect a quarter. Until they get more interceptors interceptors in the game playing around flyers is going to be tough.
ReplyDeleteGlad to hear you are rethinking warlord traits. Im not opposed to leaving them in, but I would avoid heavily the roll twice rule change.
Personally I would much prefer spearhead rather than the hammer and ancil deployment. Anytime you play with short table edges like that it has a nasty tendency to make some armies completely useless. Assault based armies have at least 12" more ground to cover and with more room to back up that tends tol leave at least two turna os shooting more than normal. .ow since you post the missions ahead of time their could be very little complaints since you k.ow what you are gettinf into...but IMO spearhead offers more army varity.
As loath as I am to change the core rules I agree with flyers never counting. Ongoing reserve shennagins can really make things dumb. Its hard enough to protect objectives from disembarking troops drom flyers, but their isnt anything tbat can really be done to protect a quarter. Until they get more interceptors interceptors in the game playing around flyers is going to be tough.
ReplyDeleteGlad to hear you are rethinking warlord traits. Im not opposed to leaving them in, but I would avoid heavily the roll twice rule change.
Personally I would much prefer spearhead rather than the hammer and ancil deployment. Anytime you play with short table edges like that it has a nasty tendency to make some armies completely useless. Assault based armies have at least 12" more ground to cover and with more room to back up that tends tol leave at least two turna os shooting more than normal. .ow since you post the missions ahead of time their could be very little complaints since you k.ow what you are gettinf into...but IMO spearhead offers more army varity.
As loath as I am to change the core rules I agree with flyers never counting. Ongoing reserve shennagins can really make things dumb. Its hard enough to protect objectives from disembarking troops drom flyers, but their isnt anything tbat can really be done to protect a quarter. Until they get more interceptors interceptors in the game playing around flyers is going to be tough.
ReplyDeleteGlad to hear you are rethinking warlord traits. Im not opposed to leaving them in, but I would avoid heavily the roll twice rule change.
Personally I would much prefer spearhead rather than the hammer and ancil deployment. Anytime you play with short table edges like that it has a nasty tendency to make some armies completely useless. Assault based armies have at least 12" more ground to cover and with more room to back up that tends tol leave at least two turna os shooting more than normal. .ow since you post the missions ahead of time their could be very little complaints since you k.ow what you are gettinf into...but IMO spearhead offers more army varity.
Mike,
ReplyDeleteAs far as the Scourging/Big Guns missions go, does that make all FA/HS units into scoring units for quarters? The rulebook seems to imply that only the non-vehicle restriction is lifted, but there's plenty of other things that can prevent you from being scoring. For example Scarabs (being swarms), would they count in a Scourging mission?
What about units embarked in transports/buildings? Are only actual boots on the ground counted for quarters? For example full Long Fang squad in a dedicated Rhino, is it worth 35 points (just the rhino) or 175 points (rhino + squad) in a Big Guns Mission?
What about units that are Falling Back?
What about Desperate Allies?
The way it's worded in the primer it seems like it overrides all of the limitations on being scoring/denial that are in the rulebook which would lead to some odd situations. Like the above Long Fangs counting from inside their rhino while their Grey Hunter friends don't.
Also (while this doesn't pertain to the quarters mission) it seems like you're shying away from using Scourging/Big Guns for the objective mission (or maybe that's wrong since it's just the primer). Any particular reason why? Obviously there isn't a downside with your missions (whereas the rulebook missions award VPs for killing FA/HS in those missions, although you could treat this the same as the Warlord Trait that awards VPs), but I don't see it as particularly unbalancing and it's a dynamic I've quite liked in the games I've played. Something to note is that in the rulebook it only makes them Scoring, not Denial, so FA/HS flyers still can't be used for last turn objective contesting (though they can grab unguarded objectives), and a HS tank will actually lose the objective if an enemy scoring unit gets nearby.
-Luke
wow, replying from my phone leaves lots of spell check errors. go me!
ReplyDeleteAnyways, something you might want to consider is FAQ'ing that flyers can't leave the board edge and enter ongoing reserves the same turn they arrive from reserves. Again, I'm not really thrilled about making a rules change with 6'th so new, but can eliminate a whole lot of stupidness and ensure that people get at least 1 round of shooting to take down potential objective/quarter grabbing units.
No need to FAQ that darwinn, it's in the rules that you cannot do that.
ReplyDeleteActually you can, it's another one of those little loopholes that need to get closed in an FAQ, kind of like Eldar Jetbikes being +2 toughness. Yea GW rules writing.
ReplyDeleteThe statement you are refering to is 'In a turn in which a flyer enters the oard from reserve it can do so facing any direction you wish providing that the resulting move will not carry it off the board again'. So yes you are right that the 'resulting move' must still keeps the flyer on the board, which coincidentally allows interceptors a chance to shoot at it.
However, it doesn't mention anything about going flat out, which is in the shooting phase. So I can come on the board pointing straight ahead, then turn 90 and face the short table edge...all nice and legal. In the shooting phase I choose to go flat out, and go off the board edge. Since the angle I chose to come on from reserves did not result in me going off the board edge I'm still perfectly within the rules.
Darwin, only may leave with a zoom move, not a flat out. Read carefully.
Delete"The rulebook seems to imply that only the non-vehicle restriction is lifted, but there's plenty of other things that can prevent you from being scoring. For example Scarabs (being swarms), would they count in a Scourging mission?"
ReplyDeleteWill this be included in the NOVA FAQ?
Mike,
ReplyDeleteI've been able to playtest these missions a few times at this point. And I have to agree with many of the previous posters, not to change the current editions rules regarding Scoring/Contesting. Even running a few planes has not been unstoppable with the dakka and anti-air tools that currently exist. Having a rule regarding only being able to score if you can "hover" benefits only certain armies, and I don’t think that’s necessary at this point in 6th eds “life.”
Mysterious terrain/objectives/warlord traits have all been so minimal in our games that I don’t find it necessary, but even then I’d rather see you keep the warlord traits in, as it adds a (I hate you say it) interesting element that people plan their character choices for. Some players are more motivated to bring Combat characters with the "personal tree" in mind, and so on.
Long and short, I like your rule set, would personally rather see you keep hammer and anvil than switch to the 5th ed spearhead style, and let the missions be what the missions currently are written as. We have a long year to see what happens to make adjustments for next!
Thanks again for putting so much care into this event we are all looking forward to!
The theme for this year is "Urban Dreams" and is composed of three distinct ideas. Stylishly-designed collections are "City Poet", "Aviation Legend" and "Architectural Technology".
ReplyDelete