Thoughts on Las Vegas Open 2018 Player Pack?

[svnvaldez]

I have edited this opening post in an attempt to refocus this thread and removal of poor wording which was not constructive. The TO is making changes to the pack, some of the information early in this thread may no longer be applicable.
 

Event pack found here:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RnKPzE0eQlixhywE-AfqUT9glpPxYzODWN2-oyae21k/edit

The Las Vegas Open 2018 will be ran January 26th through the 28th. LVO 2018 makes its self out to be one of the premier AOS tournaments in the United States and is following a very successful 82 player Grand Tournament ran by GW with Warhammer TV coverage last year.

This year the player pack is not so great... And I would love to hear the thoughts of anyone who is a tournament regular or planning on attending LVO 2018.

This players pack is 8 documents and 26 pages. The tournament will be 2 days 7 games (6 from the GH2 with a change to scorched earth, 9inches, and one battle plan under construction). The scoring of  each round will be out of 19 points. Ranging from 7 to 0 points for the primary objectives laid out in the GH2 and up to 6 points in field missions and 6 points in bonus missions. 

 

I want to reiterate that there are only a few real issues with the pack that should have been addressed through taking feedback or play testing before they were published. They are:

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, write it in and tell your opponent you pick the one you accomplish when you near the 4 point level.

This can be fixed with cards or removing the secret element 

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.

This can be fixed by making the bonus points 1 each and the field 2/4 points

 

I think this is a huge step back from a well supported GW event last year and a bad sign for USA AOS, but I am curious to hear others thoughts.

 

 

 

[Marc Wilson]

I couldn't see 8 documents and 25 pages from that link, only one 4 page document for AoS? My initial thought is that there is a lot going on there for a 2.5 hour game. Non-scenario missions are cool to offer redemption in tough match ups but extrapolating that into tertiary objectives needs a lot of housekeeping IMO. I'm a big believer in keeping games interesting for 5 turns - for both players. Seven games? Ouch - hardcore! Hope they're giving out chapsticks in the player packs.

[stato]

I really dont like the bonus objectives.  An easy 6 free points for slaughter armies, pick a 'kill' secret objective and you are on 12 points just for killing things. 

It does nothing to promote variety or different styles of army. 

(not that ill be going as im in the UK, but I probably wouldnt attend a competitive tournament in the UK that ran with a pack like this).

[Countmoore]

I’m heading over from the UK and whilst it certainly edges towards overcomplicated im looking forward to playing in something other than pure GHB17. I kinda miss the early days when secondary missions were a thing and a good run on them could earn you a draw from a scenario loss. 

 

[Uveron]

17 hours ago, svnvaldez said:

I think this is a huge step back from a well supported GW event last year and a bad sign for USA AOS, but I am curious to hear others thoughts.

Anyone see a reason why this didnt happen again this year? I haven't been following the build up to the LVO like I did last year. 

Iam also not sure where you are getting the 8 documents from? I think its a well constructed player pack about what I expect from a US based event (I mean copare it to the player pack for another GT http://www.slobberknockergt.com/aos) 

Also 7 rounds may not be for all players, but that's problem caused by the size of the  event. 

[heywoah_twitch]

There's a ton of extra ****** adding time and complexity to each round, but at least they don't make you make a *shutter* display board. So I'll give it a 7/10 might go.

edit: that's not a swear word!

[stato]

50 minutes ago, Countmoore said:

I’m heading over from the UK and whilst it certainly edges towards overcomplicated im looking forward to playing in something other than pure GHB17. I kinda miss the early days when secondary missions were a thing and a good run on them could earn you a draw from a scenario loss. 

Well I hope you have a great trip, Vegas is errr...interesting Ha!   I almost went to LVO last year as I was over for work but bottled as would have only been spectating, kind of regret it now.

I think they could be fun and id certainly be open to playing them, open war card style, but seems odd in a competative setting.  It just seems heavilly weighted to killing the opposing force to win. I know thats generally what happens but you can build to hold objectives or have fast movement, it seems they have weighted against these somewhat. Maybe it needs to be played like that to see if it makes a difference. Certainly if you dont play for them, or forget about them, its an easy way to lose the game despite doing well on the scenario.

 

 

36 minutes ago, Uveron said:

Iam also not sure where you are getting the 8 documents from?

I guess he means 1 plus 7 battleplan documents, though the 7 are just 1 for each game so its clear what the rules for that game are  and scoring sheets (I suppose in case a person doesnt have GHB2017 or they change something, but if they change something it needs to be very clear, i cant open them so dont know)

 

 

[stato]

19 minutes ago, heywoah_twitch said:

There's a ton of extra ****** adding time and complexity to each round, but at least they don't make you make a *shutter* display board. So I'll give it a 7/10 might go.

edit: that's not a swear word!

Ha!  When i read the Blood and Glory pack 'hobby score' i thought the painting scores were cool, nice way to incentive-ise hobby side. In reality people just did the bare minimum to get the point, I had planned do it all but didnt have time and in the end actually got a disparaging mark from the judge because i hadnt done even just a tiny bit of crappy freehand (i only just got the army done and wasnt preparred to half ****** freehand and ruin a model for a point i didnt really care about). Waste of everyones effort really.

[svnvaldez]

If you click on each hyperlink you get an additional document for the player pack... Each mission and the wysiwyg requirements. Most are just a copy of the mission and a score sheet but there are changes such as scorched earth being 9 inches and this 7th mission that all will play,.

 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SQh-Am9Vi5aIFouXXt4FEKG5hlzSHnfGGtpo11vXTsg/edit

[svnvaldez]

8 hours ago, Countmoore said:

I kinda miss the early days when secondary missions were a thing and a good run on them could earn you a draw from a scenario loss. 

 

It's probably unlikely but there is the possibility under this pack, that if one player scores a Major on the book mission for 7 points but 0 points in the side missions, and the other player scores all the side missions and gets 12 points. The second player would end up with a Major win purely on side missions.

Seems extreme and poorly thought out.

[Uveron]

17 hours ago, svnvaldez said:

If you click on each hyperlink you get an additional document for the player pack... Each mission and the wysiwyg requirements. Most are just a copy of the mission and a score sheet but there are changes such as scorched earth being 9 inches and this 7th mission that all will play,.

 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SQh-Am9Vi5aIFouXXt4FEKG5hlzSHnfGGtpo11vXTsg/edit

 

10 hours ago, svnvaldez said:

It's probably unlikely but there is the possibility under this pack, that if one player scores a Major on the book mission for 7 points but 0 points in the side missions, and the other player scores all the side missions and gets 12 points. The second player would end up with a Major win purely on side missions.

Seems extreme and poorly thought out.

This is kinda how the 40k ITC missions run. Its also the same was that all the 40K player packs work.  You cannot just play for a single plan you have to secure more than set of objectives.  I really do not see what your objections to it is.. other than its not just out the GHB. 

[stato]

4 hours ago, Uveron said:

This is kinda how the 40k ITC missions run. Its also the same was that all the 40K player packs work.  You cannot just play for a single plan you have to secure more than set of objectives.  I really do not see what your objections to it is.. other than its not just out the GHB. 

Yeah I figured thats where it came from, just the options in the additional objectives seem very weighted to killy armies, which are already strong.  Currently you can win a game despite getting tabled, and for some factions being tabled is almost a certainty.  This changes it so that those types of armies will have a harder time to stay ahead in total points.  There are certainly also occasions where facing strong heros or units can make games almost unwinnable if you dont have the punch to take them down (treelord in duality, 90 vulkites, etc.) so I guess this gives an option.  Positives and Negatives i guess just like currently.

How long has the pack been available?

[Lysandestolpe]

As @Uveron said, I think it's pretty cool they're giving AoS more attention that just picking missions out the book. Since Frontline is a HEAVY HEAVY 40k focused company, I'm pleased to see Frontline trying the keep AoS at its counterpart's level. Not that this will happen, but the energy is spent there. I'm very keen to hear where it lands in actuality.

And if it is not a great pack when played out, at least the made a gamble, no pun intended, to keep it interesting.

Have fun in Vegas! If you go there with an open mind and looking to play some games and run with the rules, I'm sure it'll be a great time and investment of time and money. I think the worst you can do is to begin with a critical mind and approach each game with such. In such case, I'll advice you to play another game

[Sarkazim]

This just ticks me off to a whole new level.

They've already made Tournament 40k unplayable, and now they want to shaft over AoS?  I read an article a few months ago where they were having a discussion about adapting the 40k scenarios to AoS, but it looks like they're going to actually attempt it.  I was even going look at attending events since I can't find any 40k events that don't play using this bubble.  It's going to be worse if the FLG Zealots adopt this as the standard over AoS.  It's pretty tragic when the only way I'm going to find a 40k, and now AoS Tournament, is to travel to Warhammer World for one of their event.  I simply don't money to do that.

 

[svnvaldez]

I know what the pack says about picking the secret side missions before the game starts, but what is the mechanism of checkability for the opponent.

How does this pack stop someone from not writing in the secret mission till you get the 4 points. Its secret the other player cant see my pick. I have a pen, I can write it in just before I get it.

I know it will rarely happen, I know its poor sportsmanship... but I see the potential for abuse that the TO created. If this happens once that is to many times.

[Uveron]

16 hours ago, Sarkazim said:

  It's going to be worse if the FLG Zealots adopt this as the standard over AoS.  It's pretty tragic when the only way I'm going to find a 40k, and now AoS Tournament, is to travel to Warhammer World for one of their event.  I simply don't money to do that.
 

I doubt that will happen.  For one the AoS Tournaments are already quite established. I haven't seen the Adeptacon pack but expect its different. 

I think it will more likely come down to what part of the USA your in. 

[svnvaldez]

Adeptacon pack looks wonderful this year.

[Sarkazim]

4 hours ago, Uveron said:

For one the AoS Tournaments are already quite established. I haven't seen the Adepticon pack but expect its different. 

I think it will more likely come down to what part of the USA your in. 

I'm using 40k/Aos Tournaments from a perspective of using the Missions/Scenarios from the books. 

The events themselves are established, but they've evolved, which isn't an issue.  The issue I have is that those events are no longer limited to their venues.  With 40k/ITC, it's impossible to NOT play their scenarios, or watch/read Battlereports that use book missions.  Even when I show up at a random FLGS for pickup games, I get turned away because I'd rather play 40k, over the ITC.  ie. Not every game has to be a practice for an event I don't wish to attend.

For those that approach the game outside of these events, we simply pick up the rule book, read the rules, then go from there.  This was even a recent Warhammer-Community Article where they talk about choosing and army.  Despite being a 40k article, it applies to AoS.  Here is the quote from that article where I butt heads with the ITC (and other events.)  Keep in mind, I don't have an issue with any of their changes as long as they remain restricted to their venues.  This has not been the case with the ITC for at least 3 editions now.

Quote

The final mechanism for selecting an army is to use points, most commonly associated with matched play. These will be familiar to anyone who plays the game today and are designed to balance your force for use in the 12 Eternal War and Maelstrom of War Missions.

The ITC has split from this.  They have their own scenarios which do not fit into this.  In fact their 7th ed. Scenarios were designed to avoid the existing Maelstrom missions instead of having players include them.  They went further than that, and included scoring objectives how Warmahordes does it, and not 40k.  When you removing having to include/prevent Maelstrom Objectives from being factored into your lists, and have to shift from units that need to stay on an objective for a turn instead of just being able to claim it, it creates and bubble environment where the value of certain units shifts to perform something that doesn't exist within the game.  Especially to those of us who read and practiced based off of the rules.  (Necron Wraiths were  a prime point of contention for me as the ITC exaggerated the value of this unit because of the scenario requirements)   8th edition was a slap in the face because FLG got to sneak peak, early test, 8th ed.  Even writing the army teasers for the Warhammer-community site.  Only to keep their current scenario pack.  So all of the 'This is good in competetive' still doesn't mean anything outside of the events.

Back on Topic, this is pure bad news for me.  I'm playing a difficult army to begin with, and I'm still balancing it out with the existing Battleplans.  This LVO packet shows that they're going to eff over AoS as well by forcing players to once again, deal with mechanics that don't exist within the game.  At this point, it simply means that I won't be attending the LVO.  My fear is that it will become so widely adopted, that any advice, recommendations, lists, etc, will all be based on this.  Worse if I end up unable to find a game that plays the normal book scenarios.  My main AoS force will be unable to deal with these additional choice, and I can see it being problematic for the one I'm planning on doing.



 

[Uveron]

2 minutes ago, Sarkazim said:

Back on Topic, this is pure bad news for me.  I'm playing a difficult army to begin with, and I'm still balancing it out with the existing Battleplans.  This LVO packet shows that they're going to eff over AoS as well by forcing players to once again, deal with mechanics that don't exist within the game.  At this point, it simply means that I won't be attending the LVO.  My fear is that it will become so widely adopted, that any advice, recommendations, lists, etc, will all be based on this.  Worse if I end up unable to find a game that plays the normal book scenarios.  My main AoS force will be unable to deal with these additional choice, and I can see it being problematic for the one I'm planning on doing.
 

I understand what your saying, I just dont think you have to worry. My advice is to speak up, the LVO guys are not some monlithic organisation, and feedback works. Plenty of events are still doing by the book scenarios, and its not like the USA doesnt have a AoS tournament scean.

The ITC style developed in 40K because of a lack of resources  provided by GW, that isn't the case now.  Now that beeing said if there is a worry about them 40king AOS, then maybe the USA players on this forum need to put together our own rankings system like the UK has? 

Out of Interest here are you based? 

[Sheriff]

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. 

[Sheriff]

On 08/12/2017 at 8:42 AM, stato said:

I really dont like the bonus objectives.  An easy 6 free points for slaughter armies, pick a 'kill' secret objective and you are on 12 points just for killing things. 

It does nothing to promote variety or different styles of army. 

(not that ill be going as im in the UK, but I probably wouldnt attend a competitive tournament in the UK that ran with a pack like this).

Exactly. I often finish a game (and win) with zero kill points, as I play sneakily. This lame rule is basically incentivizing Khorne worship. 

[svnvaldez]

1 hour ago, Uveron said:

The ITC style developed in 40K because of a lack of resources  provided by GW, that isn't the case now. 

This is critical to remember... GW support was almost zero for competitive play and the ITC has grown to 500 players at LV0 and 6000 ranked players for 40k

Without the efforts of guys like FLG, Ben Curry and Jonhson, SCGT crew I firmly believe we would not be in the best place I have ever seen Warhammer.

But this AOS pack is bad. So people in the USA speak up.

[Sarkazim]

1 hour ago, Uveron said:

I understand what your saying, I just dont think you have to worry. My advice is to speak up, the LVO guys are not some monlithic organisation, and feedback works. Plenty of events are still doing by the book scenarios, and its not like the USA doesnt have a AoS tournament scene.

I'm trying to NOT turn this into another one of my rants, I'm done with most of that and don't need the stress in my life.  The thread topic was relevant and I offered my opinion.  I've actually had several Chats with Reecius and one of the top ITC Ranked players is a personal friend of mine.  I went through this rant on Dakka about 3 years ago.  Lots of trolling, but I was able to connect with some guys who understood my problems and were able to keep me informed with events that didn't play ITC  40k.  My hiatus from 40k right now is mainly because none of my armies have codexes yet, so I'm being patient there, and my current work schedule.  After those though, anytime I manage to squeeze in time for a game I usually prefer AoS as I'm surrounded by an 'ITC or Die' 40k community.

1 hour ago, Uveron said:

The ITC style developed in 40K because of a lack of resources  provided by GW, that isn't the case now.  Now that being said if there is a worry about them 40king AOS, then maybe the USA players on this forum need to put together our own rankings system like the UK has? 

This may have been the original intent, but the ITC has evolved to cater to those who dislike the changes.  I'm in the minority, but I felt that the Maelstrom Missions from 7th were the best thing to happen to 40k.  The ITC insured that no one would ever find that out, because instead of adapting to 40k, they decided to maintain their game.  Similar with 8th.  New rules, but the scenarios are going to remain the same.  Competitive 40k ceased to mean anything, but the zealots based which units are effective or not based on ITC and not 40k. 

I'm not concerned about a ranking system, as long as it's limited to the venue.  Being a top ranked ITC player has no reflection of how good of a 40k player someone is.  I'm not saying that they're bad by ANY means, but it's no longer a way to tell who is good or not, since the mechanics have been altered.  It only becomes a problem when players look to these lists, copy them, get advice based on them, and buy/build/paint them, then can't understand why they don't do what everyone said they would do.  Example:  I ran into a guy who had built the popular dual detachment SM list where all the transports or whatever was free.  He was looking for a game and no one would play him.  So I volunteered.  We played 2k Maelstrom, but he had ONLY every played ITC.  So he was confused when everything that he had been told wasn't working as he almost got tabled.   Great game, and he managed to close the gap toward the end for a narrow victory to me.  I ran into him a few days later you know what he was told by the online community?  Oh it doesn't count because he wasn't playing a competitive scenario.  Imagine that,  Including all the rules made it somehow less competitive.

I agree that the AoS tournaments are pretty much running the scenarios out of the book currently.  When the ITC was just in the early on stages it was pretty much limited to the BAO, and we saw effects of that at Adepticon and the Nova Open fairly quick.  The dual-objective scenario style was present at Adepticon when I last attended.  As above, it's mostly just a fear, but this is the beginning of that.  They'll take the feedback from this, and modify it to enhance it.  I doubt they will scrap it, but we'll see.  If it becomes successful, then it might be adopted over the standard format, which will ****** up recommendations and army building.  While I don't want the ITC to go away, I would like those who support it, to be aware that they are in the minority, and that the ITC (Or any other modified event), doesn't dictate what 'competitive' is. 

1 hour ago, Uveron said:

Out of Interest here are you based? 

I'm not dodging this question, but I'm a bit more vocal about it in person than I am on forums.  I've been in the game a LOONNGG time.  It's off topic, and if you really want to know, feel free to PM me and we can continue this discussion there if you wish.

On Topic:  NOTHING good will come from the ITC Scenario packet.
 

[Uveron]

15 minutes ago, Sarkazim said:

On Topic:  NOTHING good will come from the ITC Scenario packet.

I kinda agree. 

It could be the first step on the road to problems. Or it could be the wake up call to make sure we move away from it. 

[svnvaldez]

So I'm not a 40k player and don't know a ton about its history, but for WFB basically Ben Johnson joined GW and fixed warhammer from the inside (others say killed it with AOS lol) now it's time for TOs to use the GH and not their own missions.

I am only a casual acquaintance of Reece but my understanding is he was a strong influence on 8th edition and I expect chapter approved to incorporate the good parts of ITC missions. 

It is up to the community to trust in the new GW and there General Handbook and Chapter approved.