Thoughts on Las Vegas Open 2018 Player Pack?

[Sleboda]

Simple. TOs have egos and try to make the game their own.  It appears this is no different. 

 

If you want an AoS tournament,  make the players play AoS. 

[Sarkazim]

9 hours ago, Sleboda said:

If you want an AoS tournament,  make the players play AoS. 

WHOLEHEARTEDLY agree with your statement.  The problem is they don't consider the Battleplans as part of the package.  As long as they aren't altering the core rules, then it's still AoS right?  

[Mikester1487]

21 hours ago, Sheriff said:

I struggle getting a game done in time without all this extra stuff to think about and document and seek signatures for etc. So many opportunities to mess something up (innocently) and lose out on loads of points. 

I'd probably mess something up on game 2 or so and just walk out, to the bar. 

You wait until game 2 to go to the bar? I open my own tab as soon as I'm done signing in!

I went over the rules pack from the first Google docs link and I'm not seeing what the discussion is about here.  Seems like some extra rules a player chooses to score some edge points for that close game or to score at least a little if they are on the edge of a total loss.  Can someone explain to me why this is being viewed as a negative?  Honestly just curious no ill intent here.

[svnvaldez]

There are lot of little issues here and there but in summary their are two points that I don't understand why anyone would defend.

1) There is no reason to pick a secret mission at the beginning of the game if you want to win. Just see which is easy to obtain during the game and tell your opponent you pick the one you accomplish at the 4 point level.

2) These side missions add up to 12 points of a possible 19 (book mission is max 7). They don't help balance anything and are not just small bonus points as the player who gets a major is the one with a 4+ point lead.

Then there is the time added element.

[Mikester1487]

To your first point would it resolve a lot of issues if these objectives came on a tear off tab that you have to put face down on the table, or in a small manilla envelope?  I understand that people can be shady sometimes but having that as part of your table setup ritual should resolve some issues no? 

It also seems to me that consolidating the field objectives and bonus objectives into one large table where players must choose one and cannot choose it again for the tournament would be more beneficial.  This could address not adding an obscene amount of points to a players score.

Just some of my thoughts at a second read through of the pack.

[Sarkazim]

1 hour ago, Mikester1487 said:

Can someone explain to me why this is being viewed as a negative?  

(I'll do my best)

It alters how victories are determined for purposes of ranking.  More importantly, will force players to adapt their lists to focus/achieve objectives that are outside of the mission.

- The ITC has a point differential system where player wins aren't the same when comparing them cross game.  ie. The win on Table 1 isn't the same as a win on Table 2.  
* In their defense, this is an amazing solution in an event where you have more players than rounds to find that single, undefeated player.  A 5 round event would have to cap at 32 players to get a single undefeated player.
These bonus points are tacked on to score after determining the result of the main scenario.  The outcome is that two equally matched players should have a close game and the winner will actually rank lower than an unbalanced match for the next pairing.

- The next problem is that out of the max 19 points possible, a Major Victory accounts for less than 1/2 of that score.  The MAIN objective accounts for LESS than the total score.  This means it's possible for a player to score more points on the back end than is possible in the actual scenario.  Statistically, this is a rare occurrence,  but it is possible.  It becomes frustrating, because in a Tie situation and even a minor victory, the losing player who has compensated for the additional objectives will actually win.
* In the ITC, this isn't really an issue in the larger events.  While the loser might be ranked higher, they'll still be under those that have won their games AND scored the additional VP.  In smaller events, this actually creates more problems, because you could end up pairing a winner with someone who lost the main objective in the previous game.

Regardless of either of these two points, it distracts from the main objective of just playing scenario but adding in these extra bits to skew the results.  As above, I don't have a problem with this as long as it's limited to the venue.  Players look at the results of these events to see what's performing well and what isn't.  This is problematic for two reasons.  The results are based on being able to perform with these additional scenarios.  While this number will be low, the potential for lists to play to a draw on the main objective and win off of secondaries is possible.  This confuses newer players when they base their purchases off of the results without understanding the format. 

The second problem is that it potentially alters the value of other units.  MSU, # of heroes, Output/Survivability.  I can't thing of which AOS units this applies to because I'm still just working on my own army.  I've seen it in 40k too many times though.  It ends up dictating that players can't succeed unless they take units.  The internet bullying re-enforces this with words like 'That's an Okay list for Casual Play', 'You need to have XX if you want to be competitive', 'My advice is DON'T play that', and 'There is a reason why XX is in every list'.

-----
The STUPIDITY of going through all that effort is that you still end up with a power level / ranking system of where armies sit on the ladder.  It's unnecessary since simply playing the Battleplans as they are will still filter out top armies from bottoms armies.  The difference will be that they will be reflective of how the game is written, and not some artificial ladder which has conditions in it that aren't required when building an army within the game.

[svnvaldez]

I do want everyone to keep in mind that without the ITC in the USA we wouldn't have a competitive warhammer scene and it was born from a complete neglect from GW.

Los Angeles were I am based use to have the battle bunker that held Ard Boyz... that was sold when the housing crisis hit. 

There was a time and a place for sidemissions and comp. Now is not the time and we should be using the book for large events.

See the last post for an excellent review.

[svnvaldez]

2 minutes ago, svnvaldez said:

 

To your first point would it resolve a lot of issues if these objectives came on a tear off tab that you have to put face down on the table, or in a small manilla envelope?  I understand that people can be shady sometimes but having that as part of your table setup ritual should resolve some issues no? 

It also seems to me that consolidating the field objectives and bonus objectives into one large table where players must choose one and cannot choose it again for the tournament would be more beneficial.  This could address not adding an obscene amount of points to a players score.

 

All of this would help certainly!

[Sleboda]

without the ITC in the USA we wouldn't have a competitive warhammer scene

Another mark against the ITC, then.

 

[Sheriff]

Sorry to bring up another tournament (but its relevant to discussion I hope) - what do people think of the London GT pack?

https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/a7e101_53f67052e975415e9a130795268a7709.pdf

• It has special quest objectives in the tournament like LVO but just seems less hassle and you can pick a quest to suit your play-style.
• Minor and major victories are equal points. 
• Battles are set in specific realms (depends on table I think)
• Sports and painting don't count to your score

Seems also quite complex, like with LVO, but seems fair and well thought-out. Shame that painting and sports don't count for anything though - does that incentivize turning up with a ******-looking army and being a ****** with people? (I'm not experienced with this stuff so it might not matter). 

 

 

[Sarkazim]

39 minutes ago, svnvaldez said:

I do want everyone to keep in mind that without the ITC in the USA we wouldn't have a competitive warhammer scene and it was born from a complete neglect from GW.

This is strictly not true.  

We could talk forever on why the scene died and was resurrected, but there were plenty of events around long before the ITC.  It's all off topic but the ITC did not save the competitive scene.
 

[svnvaldez]

I'm confused on the difference between Dan Heelen, Russ V., and Ben C and J vs Reese and Frankie (ITC guys). I could be wrong but does the ITC not play test 40k and Im sure had a large hand in chapter approved just like the UKs guys had in the Generals handbook?

Would we have competitive AOS (Which this is a discussion of ie, the player pack for LVO) without the UK guys? I think now that chapter approved is out the ITC 40k should take a serious look at going straight book just like AOS should.

[svnvaldez]

@Sheriff that pack seems much more simple in the scoring and mechanism of picking missions. It also does not have the potential to literally give a major win to a guy who scored max side missions and lost the book mission 12/19 points vs a guy who one the book mission and got no side missions 7/19 points (Sidemission player wins by 5 points which is 4+ and gets a major).

It's much better than the LVO pack.

[Sheriff]

34 minutes ago, svnvaldez said:

@Sheriff that pack seems much more simple in the scoring and mechanism of picking missions. It also does not have the potential to literally give a major win to a guy who scored max side missions and lost the book mission 12/19 points vs a guy who one the book mission and got no side missions 7/19 points (Sidemission player wins by 5 points which is 4+ and gets a major).

It's much better than the LVO pack.

I thought it looked good, that's reassuring. I'm just peeved about the painting as that's all I have going for me 

[Sarkazim]

1 hour ago, svnvaldez said:

I'm confused on the difference between Dan Heelen, Russ V., and Ben C and J vs Reese and Frankie (ITC guys). I could be wrong but does the ITC not play test 40k and Im sure had a large hand in chapter approved just like the UKs guys had in the Generals handbook?

Would we have competitive AOS (Which this is a discussion of ie, the player pack for LVO) without the UK guys? I think now that chapter approved is out the ITC 40k should take a serious look at going straight book just like AOS should.

I think you simply might be putting the who instead of the what.  What happened is simply that Competitive events still happened.  You've associated that event with those names, and you're implying that without these players that we wouldn't have any competitive events.  

After the fall of the GW spine (No more GT's, Games day, removal of the Outrider program, and no more tournament kits), it simply fell back onto the Clubs, FLGS stores, and loyal players to organize players.  Several stepped up to the challenge, tried to establish themselves, and setup something with the intent of making something of it.  Having to fight by not having an established name, FLGS store owners being bitter about lack of support for promoting the product, or simply protecting their own communities, to players wanting to 'correct' problems within the game, were just a few of the things that had to be overcome.  

Those names are those who were successful.  I have ZERO doubt that if they failed, we'd be talking about someone else who would be succeeded.  That's not to say that what these giants haven't done something impressive.  They have absolutely done something amazing.  They aren't the reason competitive GW events exist.  Every player, even those who prefer these alternate rules sets, are the reason that we have the events.  There are plenty of people willing to organize it, some are just more known.

 

[Drofnum]

LVO will be my first tournament and the pack does make it less appealing.  The thing that sucks is for me there are no real alternatives, its 4 hours away and is still the only event i've found any where near me.

They seem to have just needlessly complicated the games, I get adding some side objectives i suppose but the amount of objectives to track and get signed off seems silly.  I can also see that for my army the kill objectives give me a big advantage over some other armies, its super easy as a shooting army to simply pick the bonus objectives to kill specific units/general/heroes and just shoot them off if they come anywhere in range of me.

[ScottR]

2 hours ago, Drofnum said:

LVO will be my first tournament and the pack does make it less appealing.  The thing that sucks is for me there are no real alternatives, its 4 hours away and is still the only event i've found any where near me.

They seem to have just needlessly complicated the games, I get adding some side objectives i suppose but the amount of objectives to track and get signed off seems silly.  I can also see that for my army the kill objectives give me a big advantage over some other armies, its super easy as a shooting army to simply pick the bonus objectives to kill specific units/general/heroes and just shoot them off if they come anywhere in range of me.

I'm sorry to hear your having some reservations about the event.   The event is going to be huge and will just keep building, weather I'm involved or not.  I've enjoyed reading the thoughts people have put forward here.  I'm always looking at trying to build and support the AoS scene here in my area.

 Where abouts are you from?  There are a number of strong clubs arround and a number of people trying to build up the AoS scene all arround The Southwest.

[Drofnum]

I'm in Northern Utah.  We have a decent local group that gets together and plays but not much in the way of events.

I'm still very excited to go play, as I havent been to LVO before.  I just found the additional rules more cumbersome than engaging personally, I think the reasoning has been pretty well explained in previous posts.  My biggest dislikes are being able to win a major with side objectives alone and that the bonus objectives are very much skewed towards killy armies, despite me running KO which are quite good at picking off key heroes/units.

This is also just my initial feelings and could very well change when I play, we'll see in a couple months!

[Sheriff]

1 hour ago, Drofnum said:

I'm in Northern Utah.  We have a decent local group that gets together and plays but not much in the way of events.

I'm still very excited to go play, as I havent been to LVO before.  I just found the additional rules more cumbersome than engaging personally, I think the reasoning has been pretty well explained in previous posts.  My biggest dislikes are being able to win a major with side objectives alone and that the bonus objectives are very much skewed towards killy armies, despite me running KO which are quite good at picking off key heroes/units.

This is also just my initial feelings and could very well change when I play, we'll see in a couple months!

Maybe they'll listen to feedback and tweak it a bit, e.g. add objectives that don't just suit slaughter armies? 

I'm sure you'll have fun regardless - they serve beer without food there, even over 4% strength 

[Drofnum]

3 minutes ago, Sheriff said:

Maybe they'll listen to feedback and tweak it a bit, e.g. add objectives that don't just suit slaughter armies? 

I'm sure you'll have fun regardless - they serve beer without food there, even over 4% strength 

Oh, i've been to Vegas plenty, I'll take full advantage of the bar.

 

[Sheriff]

Just now, Drofnum said:

Oh, i've been to Vegas plenty, I'll take full advantage of the bar.

 

Enjoy!

My favourite bit of Utah is Goblin Valley state park, obviously. 

[svnvaldez]

36 minutes ago, Sheriff said:

Maybe they'll listen to feedback and tweak it a bit

 

This is the hope... LVO in past years, which were not overly complicated by secret/side missions, were my favorite of the year. This will be a large event regardless of the pack but some players will get screwed by these sidemissions that favor an opponent, the opponent cheating and not picking a secret mission, or by not finishing rounds because of the time added.

If the TO would remove the secret element of the field missions,  equalize the book missions and side mission points 7 each for a possible of 14 (change the field missions to 2/4 instead of 4/6 and make the bonus missions 1 point), and reduced the number of bonus missions to choose from keeping the more balanced ones.

Then this pack might have a much better balance of fun and fair.

 

[Requizen]

I get the trepidation, but Frontline's secondary/tertiary missions have always been attempts to create better scenarios if you're in a hard matchup. Oftentimes the book missions (at least in the previous few editions of 40k, when they started doing their ITC missions) were completely unwinnable in certain situations, mainly due to poor balancing on GW's parts. There were plenty of 7th ed 40k games I couldn't have won against Eldar or Gladius Space Marines if we played straight out of the book, but was able to win or at least get some secondary points because the ITC missions were way better balanced. I enjoyed book Maelstrom as much as the next guy, but the base cards were laughably imbalanced for competitive play. 

Would I prefer straight book missions? Yes and no. I love the book missions, but I think it's a good thing that they're shaking it up a bit, it's nice to play something other than the same 6 missions every time. I think the idea of secondary/tertiary missions is a good in the situation where you're in a poor matchup and have new ways to make up points. Plenty of other tournaments have done it - notably Adepticon last year had hidden secondary objectives that were extremely well received, at least by the people I talked to. 

I think the fact that the Primary can be "overwritten" by Secondaries is not great, but the case in which a person gets a Major Loss but still gets all their Secondary/Tertiary points and the person with the Major Win gets 0 Secondary/Tertiary is pretty unlikely. 

I've chatted with Scott (the TO for this event) a couple times and he's a very reasonable person. If you really think that the setup is problematic, reach out.

[Drofnum]

3 minutes ago, Requizen said:

I get the trepidation, but Frontline's secondary/tertiary missions have always been attempts to create better scenarios if you're in a hard matchup. Oftentimes the book missions (at least in the previous few editions of 40k, when they started doing their ITC missions) were completely unwinnable in certain situations, mainly due to poor balancing on GW's parts. There were plenty of 7th ed 40k games I couldn't have won against Eldar or Gladius Space Marines if we played straight out of the book, but was able to win or at least get some secondary points because the ITC missions were way better balanced. I enjoyed book Maelstrom as much as the next guy, but the base cards were laughably imbalanced for competitive play. 

Would I prefer straight book missions? Yes and no. I love the book missions, but I think it's a good thing that they're shaking it up a bit, it's nice to play something other than the same 6 missions every time. I think the idea of secondary/tertiary missions is a good in the situation where you're in a poor matchup and have new ways to make up points. Plenty of other tournaments have done it - notably Adepticon last year had hidden secondary objectives that were extremely well received, at least by the people I talked to. 

I think the fact that the Primary can be "overwritten" by Secondaries is not great, but the case in which a person gets a Major Loss but still gets all their Secondary/Tertiary points and the person with the Major Win gets 0 Secondary/Tertiary is pretty unlikely. 

I've chatted with Scott (the TO for this event) a couple times and he's a very reasonable person. If you really think that the setup is problematic, reach out.

My question would be are they making changes to AoS based off their 40k experience and if so, why? It seems like everyone is hinting at that being the case and that doesnt make any sense to me.  I will admit to some heavy bias there though as i dont like the way 40k plays.

I think side objectives are fine, i just think its the amount of them along with the issues svnvaldez mentioned that leave a bad taste in my mouth.  I am planning on play testing them with a couple guys I know that are going to the event as well to see how they play out in an actual game.

[svnvaldez]

17 minutes ago, Requizen said:

I think the fact that the Primary can be "overwritten" by Secondaries is not great, but the case in which a person gets a Major Loss but still gets all their Secondary/Tertiary points and the person with the Major Win gets 0 Secondary/Tertiary is pretty unlikely. 

It is extremely unlikely, but over the course of 7 games with 100 players its bound to happen a few times.

When the fix is as easy as a second look at the distribution of points, I would hope that it will be considered.