Thoughts on Las Vegas Open 2018 Player Pack?

[ScottR]

2 hours 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!

If the added objectives have no chance to trup the Battleplan Win, then they have little to no point in the game.   My personal opinion based or GT's from Warhammer Fanticy Battles.  Much like the problems in 8th and previous editions where if extras were added to a GT, and they usually were, they were at best 200 out of 2600+ points that could be earned on the table.   Most players ignored them and just killed their opponents army, general, and took banners to get the points.  

The base matched play Battleplans stand well on their own.   The objectives were borrowed from lots of other games, the reason to add them is to try to shake up the meta and give divers armies a better chance on the tables.  This is the same reasoning that many events give for mixing in extra objectives or writing their own battleplans.  Also the idea is to help split the field without using Points Killed.   

I don't know how far Denver is from you but they ran a GT, First Blood, and the guys involved are already planning another.  It sound like they are shooting for bi-anual event?     

[Drofnum]

Denver is about 8 hours away. Too far to drive generally, too bad my family just moved away from there.

As for the added objectives trumping the main, why do they need to be that way?  In my mind added objectives are something that tip the balance in a close game and while these can do that they take it so far that you could potentially win a game on those alone. They could just as easily be worth half as many points and still tip the balance without completely trumping the main battleplan.  I just dont see the point, especially if the point is to encourage more diverse gameplay, a large portion of the added objectives are essentially "Kill X", which seems quite similar to kill points?

Quote

 Most players ignored them and just killed their opponents army, general, and took banners to get the points.  

I can tell you for me i will take Assassinate, Kingslayer and Strike first in 90% of my games with Monster Hunter swapping in situationally.  Cause I know I can achieve those nearly every time but for me those are the most boring objectives in the game.  The secret objectives will be much the same Witch Hunter, Capture the flag, Break Their Will and Cull the Horde being fairly obvious choices depending on opponents.  I do have to say that I like some of the secret objectives, like counting coup and spread the word as they do encourage a playstyle that isnt simply kill all the things.

I also have to say that although i know i'm being pretty doom and gloom in this thread, i am genuinely looking forward to the event and i think it will be great fun.  My gripes are fairly minor even though i may not be conveying them that way. Its been a pretty slow day at work.  

[svnvaldez]

1 hour ago, ScottR said:

If the added objectives have no chance to trup the Battleplan Win, then they have little to no point in the game.   My personal opinion based or GT's from Warhammer Fanticy Battles.  Much like the problems in 8th and previous editions where if extras were added to a GT, and they usually were, they were at best 200 out of 2600+ points that could be earned on the table.   Most players ignored them and just killed their opponents army, general, and took banners to get the points.  

 

The issue is the following:

There are three extremes:

1) Both players get there field and bonus missions for 12 points (Strong armies Kunning Rukk, Changehost, Murderhost, and Vanguard Wing should be able to score them easily, those who will struggle are those "diverse armies" that lack movement and ranged output that the strong armies possess), Then the winner of the mission is solely decided by the player who wins the book mission, since those 7 points are mutually exclusive. The only thing the side missions have added are time,  book keeping, tie breaker decider to side mission rather than VPs.

2) One player get their field and bonus missions for 12 points and wins book for 7 points, opponent gets 0 side or book. 

3) One player get their field and bonus missions for 12 points and loses book for 0 points, opponent gets 7 on  book and 0 on side. Sidemission player wins the major, most likely because the sidemission player plays a list like  (Strong armies Kunning Rukk, Changehost, Murderhost, and Vanguard Wing ) which sidemission favors.

I don't think any of those are a good thing. There are options, the TO could make side missions purely tie breakers, change the distribution so they cant flip the winner, etc.... but whats in the pack now is poor imo.

What side missions really accomplish is taking the planning element out for those "diverse armies",  the "diverse armies" already needed a rock solid game plan to beat a top meta army... Now that top meta army is going to get those 12 side missions points because top tier armies are top tier for a reason, they have range output or movement. 

The "diverse armies" need to figure out a way to get the side mission and win the battle plan mission with there limited tools.

At a large competitive event, which the LVO and Adepticon are... these things need to be considered. The 40k ITC missions are extensively play tested and this AOS pack is not.

And the mechanism of enforceability of the secret missions has to be fixed... like I said, just don't pick a mission till you are going to get the 4 points and then write it down.

[Sarkazim]

7 hours ago, Requizen said:

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.

How do we say ‘Don’t ruin AoS like they did with 40k’ in a way that will have any impact on the decision to avoid running this ******?   If he is the same kind of ‘Reasonable’ as the 40k side, then it won’t have any impact, and there won’t be any point.  

7 hours ago, Requizen said:

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. 

Im not trying to be disrespectful (or trolling), but you don’t create balance by removing core elements of scenarios and/or adding other mechanics.  I’ve found the complete opposite of what you said to be true.  The ITC missions were utter ——, and are probably the most unbalanced scenarios out there still.  

I’ve heard the whole ‘I couldn’t have won vs. X if we played the straight missions’ argument so many times.  What I found was that those players who struggled with it, had a more difficult time adjusting their army to the scenarios.  It was easier for them to ignore having to deal with that so they wouldn’t have to adapt.  7th introduced the Maelstrom cards, and even I ignored them until I got a grasp on the changes.  After that, I went back and incorporated them into my lists, and found it to be VERY competitive.

The ITC went the other way, and helped destroy the whole thing by avoiding incorporating it.  They couldn’t leave it at that either.  They replaced it with some brainless attempt to try what they thought was the intent, then managed to convince the players that they were somehow still playing Maelstrom from the book.  This didn’t become a problem until it spilled outside of their events.  Independent events were now playing the ITC instead of 40k.  Casual games / Batreps started showing the ITC instead of 40k.  In some cases, a players first exposure to the hobby was the ITC, not 40k.

I gave the scenarios a good year of playing them, tried to enjoy them, modified and adapted my list to succeed, just like anyone else.  I ended up not having fun, being pigeon holed into running units that didn’t perform well in 40k, knowing that a HUGE part of the game had been ripped out.  There is nothing competitive about the ITC, unless you’re changing the definition of competitive to also mean nerfed?The BIGGEST tradgedy of all of it was that they HAD the opportunity to scrap their system with 8th, but didnt even bother.  The insult is that they got to play test it, write articles on how armies are going to change, and then show us that it’s still not good enough by continuing with what they’ve been playing with for years.

There are plenty of competitive lists that will never get their opportunity to shine because of what they’ve done on the 40k side.  This packet is emulating that, and is just the start of continuing to divide the community between those who play the ITC, and those that play AoS.  In the end it won’t make one... bit... of difference... to FLG.  What matters to them is that they fill those seats, and they will,do that as long as they cater to those who want to avoid adjusting to the current game state.  An effort is no longer being made to create a truly competitive event.

The rest of us will continue to wait for Competitive 40k/AoS to return to the US.

 

[Requizen]

9 hours ago, Sarkazim said:

How do we say ‘Don’t ruin AoS like they did with 40k’ in a way that will have any impact on the decision to avoid running this ******?

I would probably start by leaving out all the vitriol and internet rage that you just poured into the last 6 paragraphs. You're entitled to your opinion, but once you start piling insults and accusations onto anyone who disagrees with you, it sort of makes you hard to take seriously.

[Sarkazim]

1 hour ago, Requizen said:

I would probably start by leaving out all the vitriol and internet rage that you just poured into the last 6 paragraphs. You're entitled to your opinion, but once you start piling insults and accusations onto anyone who disagrees with you, it sort of makes you hard to take seriously.

Fair Enough.
 

17 hours ago, Requizen said:

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. 

So how is this not the same thing?  

Trying to be sincere here and not trolling, and trying to keep it relevant to the topic.  I've had a great experience here compared to other places, like Dakka.  I try to have an open discussion, but it's the same thing every time.    The ITC has evolved to cater to the discontent and hatred toward the rules.  We've had to listen to this vitriol and hate for at least 3 editions of 40k now.  This AoS packet is a reflection of the same thing happening.



 

[stato]

20 minutes ago, Sarkazim said:

So how is this not the same thing?  

Trying to be sincere here and not trolling, and trying to keep it relevant to the topic.  I've had a great experience here compared to other places, like Dakka.  I try to have an open discussion, but it's the same thing every time.    The ITC has evolved to cater to the discontent and hatred toward the rules.  We've had to listen to this vitriol and hate for at least 3 editions of 40k now.  This AoS packet is a reflection of the same thing happening.
 

Its entirely probable they just decided they wanted something unique and given how popular ITC is (regardless of if you think its good or bad, ive not played it) they might have just decided to copy that approach across. We dont know what there motivation is and presenting it as them pushing 'hate' is not really fair. 

This isnt the place to go into detail of why ITC may or may-not work, lets focus on this pack specifically.  There are a few people now who have expressedconcern it may favour the already strong factions (I play Kharadron, i think it will make it even easier to win in majority of games), obviously this will not have been their intent so if we can try and present constructive criticism then hopefully they will hear this and combine it with feedback from the event if they do go with it

[WSDdeloach]

On 12/11/2017 at 12:29 PM, 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.

This isn’t a 40k forum (lol) but I disagree with that statement. Book missions are not suited for competitive 40k play. 

[Requizen]

46 minutes ago, Sarkazim said:

Fair Enough.

So how is this not the same thing?  

Trying to be sincere here and not trolling, and trying to keep it relevant to the topic.  I've had a great experience here compared to other places, like Dakka.  I try to have an open discussion, but it's the same thing every time.    The ITC has evolved to cater to the discontent and hatred toward the rules.  We've had to listen to this vitriol and hate for at least 3 editions of 40k now.  This AoS packet is a reflection of the same thing happening.
 

Well first off, I never used the words "braindead" or things that had to be bleeped out   And that's fine, I get that we're all passionate about the game, so feelings can get heated, I don't take it personally or anything.

I honestly don't think that book Maelstrom is in any way competitive. The random nature of the deck makes for insane swings that you can't counter by good or bad play. If  I'm playing Necrons against Eldar, and I draw "Kill a Monster or Vehicle" which I can technically score 1 point off of with difficulty because they have one or two, and the Eldar draws "Cast Psychic Powers" and scores 3 points because they easily cast 3 and roll a d3, then that doesn't feel very fun. 

I actually like Maelstrom events where you can customize a deck or have a free Mulligan per game (the book one costing a CP is too expensive imo), but straight out of the book is way too random for a real competitive event. The ITC Maelstrom is still random - but it's random with a smaller set of outcomes, which is better, and each outcome has a set point reward. I completely despise d3 Victory Points, which is why Scorched Earth is my least favorite mission in either GHB. 

 

But yes, as @stato said, on the pack itself. I don't think the intent was to "hose over" armies that are good at existing book missions, but rather to give more granular point outcomes. Currently, the only way to differentiate between two undefeated people is by Kill Points, which is hardly reliable since there are plenty of armies that are great at accomplishing missions but don't kill as much. Strength of Schedule is a good side tracking thing, but having secondary/tertiary the way they have it is obviously just an attempt to have more data points to differentiate players.

Having run events myself, and having tried to write secondary objectives or new missions, it's hard. Unless you're playtesting a lot (which sometimes isn't feasible for one person doing it as a volunteer, as Scott is), you just kind of try to think through all possibilities and make something balanced. I'm sure he would love feedback on whether or not people think his secondaries are balanced for the various armies or strongly balance armies that are already doing well anyway. Constructive feedback is always welcome.

[WSDdeloach]

Guys. The pack is built on the point that the game is full of CLEARLY top table armies out there. If a player wants to bring an army that they LOVE. Which dosent happen to have very over the top allegiance abilities or movement mechanics then this should balance the feild a bit for those armies. 

As for scoring, the side missions are weighted and built in such a way where if you’re already one doing well in the main mission with good play. These shouldn’t be unachiveable by either player.. there making them almost irrelevant of the actual score. The odds of a player doing all sides and no main and still winning are almost ZERO. 

I know the crew responsible for the event personally. This isn’t an Anti-GW move by making the pack have side or secret missions. Any one who thinks so is foolish. Scott (the head TO) in particular couldn’t be more of an AoS Champion. He’s worked hard on growing a strong tournament community out here in the USA/West Coast and is constantly looking to improve his packs to facilitate not only competitive but fun events. 

That being said, the ITC hold more events a year than anyone else period (mostly 40k) and I currently compete in both systems. I actually wouldn’t be opposed to seeing AoS go to a full ITC championships scenario format like the currently do in 40k. I know a lot of people on here HAVENT played those missions and that format, but it’s extremely rewarding to the better player and actually creates a lot of balance and large meta shifts. 

Finally, the LVO is going to be an Awesome event. Tons of fun, over 100 players, cool venue and great support. It really bums me out that people are showing distain for somthing that Scott is doing on HIS OWN TIME. To promote the love we all have for AoS and the Hobby. So like other have said, giving feed back is great. But keep it positive and helpful. It’s gettjng negative in here and I don’t think that it was @svnvaldez intention. 

[Mikester1487]

So I know we're 3 pages in, but what the devil does ITC stand for?

[Requizen]

15 minutes ago, Mikester1487 said:

So I know we're 3 pages in, but what the devil does ITC stand for?

ITC is the Independent Tournament Circuit. The organization Frontline Gaming created the ITC to have a way to track progress of competitive players around the world and rank them against one another. Events submit results to the ITC and every year at the LVO, the person who ranks highest "wins" that season. There's trophies and internet glory for the most part. It has people who love it and people who hate it, for various reasons on each side.

This is the first full year of the AoS ITC (they technically started one halfway through the previous season when GHB2016 came out), and it's been growing over time, though LVO will be the biggest event that submits results by far. 

[ScottR]

Sarkazim Im with you when it come to any universal adoption or a set of mission.   Each RTT and each GT should feel different and challange its players in defferent ways.  It sounds like your enviorment is much like like my own, where most everyone only plays the ITC missions.  Fostering that kind of community is certinlynot my goal.  I want to go to different events and see new takes on the game I love.  

the FLG guys regularly say run your event your way.  Many I have run include soft scores, strait missions, sideboards, you name it.  I don't think there is any one right way to host an event i'd like them to all look and feel different.

I'm looking at coping the Warhammer World "Heats" for an evet and then the "Skull of Thrones" event, especially sence I have little chance of making it to WW.

[svnvaldez]

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 and tell your opponent you pick the one you accomplish at 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

[svnvaldez]

People buy their tickets to LVO, make plans, or cancel based on the player pack. I think it's important to make changes to it

My hope is the the FLG/ITC/AOS TO  incorporate the feedback in this thread and the LVO can be ran smoothly and continue to be a primire AOS event.

[Ryan Taylor]

So Sam, have you reached out to the organizers to state your concerns? 

Seems that you have some suggestions for the TO, (Who welcomes questions at the bottom of the pack) to take into consideration. 

My take ATM is that the side missions should be able to get you the major. Can it be done more elegantly? Sure just do it if they get their secondary and tertiary objectives then it moves the result one up or down if they did not. 

Have you played under the pack? I do like that you have moved away from just calling it a hot mess with actual points far more constructive. 

 

[svnvaldez]

5 hours ago, Ryan Taylor said:

So Sam, have you reached out to the organizers to state your concerns? 

I have and I hope feedback is incorporated.

5 hours ago, Ryan Taylor said:

My take ATM is that the side missions should be able to get you the major. Can it be done more elegantly? Sure just do it if they get their secondary and tertiary objectives then it moves the result one up or down if they did not. 

 

Agreed.

5 hours ago, Ryan Taylor said:

Have you played under the pack?

I have, the side mission scoring really doesn't do much, both players get them and the 7 book points decide the winner,  the secret aspect has to be fixed and the time added was a concern.

5 hours ago, Ryan Taylor said:

I do like that you have moved away from just calling it a hot mess with actual points far more constructive. 

 

I let my emotions get the  best of me when starting this thread,  It comes off as arrogant and overly abrasive which only results in feedback being tuned out. Probably should edit that out. However I do believe some good discussion has come of this thread and I hope 1) We will see minor changes to the LVO pack and 2) More care/play testing in event packs in the USA

[Sarkazim]

 

6 hours ago, WSDdeloach said:

Guys. The pack is built on the point that the game is full of CLEARLY top table armies out there. If a player wants to bring an army that they LOVE. Which doesn't happen to have very over the top allegiance abilities or movement mechanics then this should balance the field a bit for those armies. 

This pack is nothing but failure because this is where it starts.  We know this because of how the ITC has ruined 40k.  This pack, and others like it, are based on fixing a problem that would first have to exist.  A perception that such a problem exists in the first place, but it's difficult to balance.  AoS has done something that hasn't been done in a long time, and that is updated scenarios within an edition.  GW is now actively adapting the game more than they have in the past.

Prior to GHB1, we only had the one real scenario, so a problem did exist when trying to provide variety to an event.  GHB1 gave us scenarios with 2 objectives.  The first being whatever the main objective was.  The second test to see who killed more models/points was only ever implemented if the results of the first objective didn't determine a winner.  This leads to what you're saying @WSDdeloach, that we have a game where there are clearly top table armies.  There is nothing wrong with making it accessible so that players can bring their own armies and still hope to win, but it really needs to keep this core concept of scenario design when trying to make improvements.  

This pack doesn't accomplish what you're hoping it will.  First of all, while there may be a ladder, it is one set by GW.  It's their game, we should let them fix it.  I'll come back to this, but it's the first key point.  The second is that this pack starts by detracting from the game resting on that main objective.  No one should ever be able to win off of secondary objectives.  This pack actually decreases the value of winning that main objective by possibly denying a major victory to someone who earned it.  The last point is that we've had an update, and it was about a year from the previous one.  None of the GHB17 missions have added anything resembling this pack, so there isn't a problem.

We know this will fail because of what they've done to 40k.
(I've tried to make this relevant to the discussion and the approach is from the mentality above, and what the ITC did to address it.  If you read this as a defense of a mechanic that isn't current, then you're missing my point).  I've put this in a spoiler, since it was mentioned that this is an AoS forum and not a 40k one.  I'm attempting to illustrate a pattern here.  After this, I'll be done ranting.  I play this game to remove stress from my life and not add to it.  The ITC as a whole has not been a positive influence on my hobby, and representing ~20% of the total community, shouldn't be dictating the game.

 

 

6 hours ago, Requizen said:

I honestly don't think that book Maelstrom is in any way competitive. The random nature of the deck makes for insane swings that you can't counter by good or bad play. If  I'm playing Necrons against Eldar, and I draw "Kill a Monster or Vehicle" which I can technically score 1 point off of with difficulty because they have one or two, and the Eldar draws "Cast Psychic Powers" and scores 3 points because they easily cast 3 and roll a d3, then that doesn't feel very fun. 

I actually like Maelstrom events where you can customize a deck or have a free Mulligan per game (the book one costing a CP is too expensive imo), but straight out of the book is way too random for a real competitive event. The ITC Maelstrom is still random - but it's random with a smaller set of outcomes, which is better, and each outcome has a set point reward. I completely despise d3 Victory Points, which is why Scorched Earth is my least favorite mission in either GHB. 

This is where the problems began.  You, and many like you,  viewed the Maelstrom missions as a problem, instead of a solution in a 'competitive' environment.  There were many changes from 6th to 7th that hadn't really been done before.  The codexes were all still valid, breakaway from the standard FoC, Allies, LoW, etc.  Even I kept my lists from 6th and tried to play 7th.  It took me a good long while to get over that the reason I wasn't performing was is that I wasn't adapting to the current format, not just the changes to the rules.

The Maelstrom missions were an answer to what the game REALLY needed though, and that was a shakeup from the 'Eternal War' missions.  From 3rd through to the first part of 6th, the missions themselves hadn't really changed.  While the rules, units, models, etc all changed, we still had a very stagnant situation where we simply murdered each other until the 2nd to last turn then scrambled to sit in a chair before the music stopped.  I HAVE to give the FLG guys credit here because when the GW support structure failed to provide us with updated RTT packs, the ITC scenarios evolved from trying to break this multi-edition problem of musical chairs by having them at the end of the game.

In case anyone is unfamiliar with it, the Maelstrom cards gave EVERY player 36 objectives that they now had to plan for.  The problem we had, myself included, is that we failed to look at these objectives prior to listbuilding and instead tried to adapt our current lists to achieving them.  It didn't seem fair that I would draw a 'Cast a Psychic Power' when I didn't have a psyker option available like previous editions.  It wasn't fair that I had to kill a Flyer or MC when my opponent didn't have any.  So it was easy to create a problem based on this, when the reality was the opposite.

It didn't become apparent to me until I started trying to list build, that there was another factor in play.  This was the first time that players had to factor in DENIAL of opponents getting objectives prior to listbuilding.  While I'm sure there were possible combos where cards couldn't be achieved, but with the Allies table, I found it difficult to not have the option to achieve every objective that I had control over.  Like everyone else, I had to weigh how important those objectives were to me.  When I did this, the other amazing thing about Maelstrom opened up, in that I would be rewarded for NOT running something that would be in my opponents deck.   Taking anything in my list, especially those needed for a specialized objective, also made it possible for my opponent to score that objective.  I'll use the psyker as an example.  My army didn't natively have access to a psyker, but I did on my allies.  If I REALLY wanted to be able to score the 'Cast' objective, then that choice also meant that my opponent would also get the 'kill a psyker'.  This became incredibly competitive as EVERY unit choice had to now factor in 'how easy is it going to be for my opponent to score the VP'?  

Since it never made it to that step by those who struggled with it, it was perceived as a problem that needed to be corrected.  Like @Requizensaid, he wouldn't be able to kill X if his opponent didn't have that particular element.  One popular solution, I first saw it on MWG, was to be able to re-draw a card if that card could never be completed.  Take a moment to think about that.  An Eldar player CHOOSES to not bring a Wraithknight, and players feel that they should be rewarded again by being able to skip that objective?  Anyone that plays MTG will also tell you the additional side effect of this method, and that was 'Card Advantage'.  Example:  I managed to tune one of my lists to make it so that there were 6 objectives that my opponent couldn't get, and another 2-3 that would be extremely difficult to accomplish.  By playing by the redraw method, my opponent no longer had a 36 objective deck, but a 30 objective deck.  True that I also had the ability to redraw, but it flips the mechanic again by rewarding those who did diversify.  There was no effective way to equalize the objectives unless you made sure everyone was playing with a full deck.  

The ITC did MUCH MUCH MUCH worse than this though.  They reduced the objectives down to 6.  To be fair, once you took out the copies of the same objectives, each player would only have 18-24 different objectives depending on which of the 3 deck options you used.  They completely destroyed the introduced mechanic by making sure that no objectives would be impossible.  While I can understand the mentality behind the decision, the biggest effect it had is that players did not have to drastically alter their existing lists to continue playing.  It was a HUGE step backward toward the very thing that ITC was hoping to break.

That wasn't enough for the ITC to ruin the game though.  This wasn't the result the Maelstrom missions themselves, but problems that they created by fixing something that wasn't broken in the first place.  Like shooting holes in a boat to stop it from leaking.  They narrowed the number of objective markers from 6 down to 2, so that slower, or more elite armies would have a fair fight at being able to score objectives.  Never mind that this gave the faster moving or cheaper armies a chance to win.  They removed the random locations of the objectives by fixing them to set points regardless of the scenario.  Never mind that armies that relied on avoidance, now had to go through units that they would normally tie up or ignore, or have the objective in a defensible position.  Maelstrom missions remained active until they were completed, forcing players to focus on them during the game to score more points.  The ITC reset the objectives each turn regardless.  They also introduced this idea of holding an objective for a turn to be able to claim it.  Let's ignore the armies that have the ability to completely remove their opponent off the objective to claim it, then leave it, instead of being forced to stay there and get slaughtered.

The results of this were reflected throughout the ITC.  Hard to kill units, especially Deathstars, only had to be in one of two places, leaving their opponents with no other option.  Maelstrom countered this by having multiple objectives that made it difficult for those units to be in different places.  There was no penalty for bringing big units, like Wraithknights, IK's, or even Deathstars, since there were never any objectives to kill them.  Individual units were affected as well.  Dual-Gladius became a powerhouse because of the 14+ Obsec units that only ever had to fight over 2 objectives opposed to six.  Tanky units, like Wraithknights, and Necron Wraiths had their values exaggerated because you didn't score the point by bringing the units that scored points the way they did in Maelstrom missions. 

The end result was the ITC created a bubble where it was easier to ignore the one problem, then create more problems based off of the solution.  This resulted in an artificial ranking of armies that may or may not have performed well had they been forced to actually play 40k.  I want to be CLEAR, that I actually do not have a problem with this as long as it stayed within the event.  The problems didn't arise until THIS replaced all aspects of 40k.  From local tournaments, to casual gaming, to offering listbuilding or purchasing advice to new players.  When these players copy these ITC lists, they can't figure out WHY they don't perform well when playing 40k.

The biggest insult is that the opportunity to wipe the slate clean arrived with 8th.  They chose to maintain this artificial bubble.  We've still got Maelstrom, regardless of my thoughts on the improvements or nerfing of the scenarios, it's still the current state of the game.  We've even gotten updated missions in the Chap. Approved.   I quoted the article from WHC where listbuilding should factor in the 12 scenarios.  Not the 12 scenarios and also the additional scenarios that events choose to supplement. The ITC is no longer considered competitive because lists that focus on these 12 scenarios will not do well in the ITC.

4 hours ago, ScottR said:

The FLG guys regularly say run your event your way.  Many I have run include soft scores, strait missions, sideboards, you name it.  I don't think there is any one right way to host an event i'd like them to all look and feel different.

Saw this after I wrote all this.  First, thank you for the support, it's nice to know I'm not alone.  Not going to go back and delete it all, since I've put my thoughts down in the most 'safe zone' approach that I can apply.  It's done, and I thank those that read it.  

I think you've managed to say it better than I could, in that the ITC isn't the ONLY way to run the event.  You bring up a good point, and I've got to agree and give the FLG guys credit here as well.  I KNOW they don't stick to the ITC scenarios and play 'casual' scenarios as well.  The ITC pack even invites players to not use the ITC pack and still run the event.  It's great marketing, and it's a great way to get players to attend your events.  I wish they could see how they've got a zealous cult that follows their format.  Even if they did show up, I'm not sure those are the kind of players that I would want to have at my event.  I do not have fun when I attend ITC events (to support my friends who are running it).  I wouldn't want players showing up to mine and complaining about how they didn't find it fun because I DIDN'T implement the changes or see the game the way they do.

 

That said, this pack is just the beginning of the road that the ITC will drag AoS through.  The intent is to make it so that we will see some diversity in the army rankings.  The results will show that some will, while it won't impact others at all.  The final result will be an altered ranking of what is considered good anyways.  Ironically, the only difference between this one and the one that exists under the current setup is that GW isn't dictating which armies are good/bad.  So what are you truly hoping to accomplish when change the game into something other than AoS, only to end up with a fan driven result as opposed to a company controlled one?
 

[svnvaldez]

This really isn't a discussion about 40k, or the ITC, just that there are clear issues that should be addressed with this pack. I have edited the opening post and dropped wording like "hot mess". Definitely not helpful for open discussion.

[WSDdeloach]

2 hours ago, Sarkazim said:

 

This pack is nothing but failure because this is where it starts.  We know this because of how the ITC has ruined 40k.  This pack, and others like it, are based on fixing a problem that would first have to exist.  A perception that such a problem exists in the first place, but it's difficult to balance.  AoS has done something that hasn't been done in a long time, and that is updated scenarios within an edition.  GW is now actively adapting the game more than they have in the past.

Prior to GHB1, we only had the one real scenario, so a problem did exist when trying to provide variety to an event.  GHB1 gave us scenarios with 2 objectives.  The first being whatever the main objective was.  The second test to see who killed more models/points was only ever implemented if the results of the first objective didn't determine a winner.  This leads to what you're saying @WSDdeloach, that we have a game where there are clearly top table armies.  There is nothing wrong with making it accessible so that players can bring their own armies and still hope to win, but it really needs to keep this core concept of scenario design when trying to make improvements.  

This pack doesn't accomplish what you're hoping it will.  First of all, while there may be a ladder, it is one set by GW.  It's their game, we should let them fix it.  I'll come back to this, but it's the first key point.  The second is that this pack starts by detracting from the game resting on that main objective.  No one should ever be able to win off of secondary objectives.  This pack actually decreases the value of winning that main objective by possibly denying a major victory to someone who earned it.  The last point is that we've had an update, and it was about a year from the previous one.  None of the GHB17 missions have added anything resembling this pack, so there isn't a problem.

We know this will fail because of what they've done to 40k.
(I've tried to make this relevant to the discussion and the approach is from the mentality above, and what the ITC did to address it.  If you read this as a defense of a mechanic that isn't current, then you're missing my point).  I've put this in a spoiler, since it was mentioned that this is an AoS forum and not a 40k one.  I'm attempting to illustrate a pattern here.  After this, I'll be done ranting.  I play this game to remove stress from my life and not add to it.  The ITC as a whole has not been a positive influence on my hobby, and representing ~20% of the total community, shouldn't be dictating the game.

  Reveal hidden contents

 

This is where the problems began.  You, and many like you,  viewed the Maelstrom missions as a problem, instead of a solution in a 'competitive' environment.  There were many changes from 6th to 7th that hadn't really been done before.  The codexes were all still valid, breakaway from the standard FoC, Allies, LoW, etc.  Even I kept my lists from 6th and tried to play 7th.  It took me a good long while to get over that the reason I wasn't performing was is that I wasn't adapting to the current format, not just the changes to the rules.

The Maelstrom missions were an answer to what the game REALLY needed though, and that was a shakeup from the 'Eternal War' missions.  From 3rd through to the first part of 6th, the missions themselves hadn't really changed.  While the rules, units, models, etc all changed, we still had a very stagnant situation where we simply murdered each other until the 2nd to last turn then scrambled to sit in a chair before the music stopped.  I HAVE to give the FLG guys credit here because when the GW support structure failed to provide us with updated RTT packs, the ITC scenarios evolved from trying to break this multi-edition problem of musical chairs by having them at the end of the game.

In case anyone is unfamiliar with it, the Maelstrom cards gave EVERY player 36 objectives that they now had to plan for.  The problem we had, myself included, is that we failed to look at these objectives prior to listbuilding and instead tried to adapt our current lists to achieving them.  It didn't seem fair that I would draw a 'Cast a Psychic Power' when I didn't have a psyker option available like previous editions.  It wasn't fair that I had to kill a Flyer or MC when my opponent didn't have any.  So it was easy to create a problem based on this, when the reality was the opposite.

It didn't become apparent to me until I started trying to list build, that there was another factor in play.  This was the first time that players had to factor in DENIAL of opponents getting objectives prior to listbuilding.  While I'm sure there were possible combos where cards couldn't be achieved, but with the Allies table, I found it difficult to not have the option to achieve every objective that I had control over.  Like everyone else, I had to weigh how important those objectives were to me.  When I did this, the other amazing thing about Maelstrom opened up, in that I would be rewarded for NOT running something that would be in my opponents deck.   Taking anything in my list, especially those needed for a specialized objective, also made it possible for my opponent to score that objective.  I'll use the psyker as an example.  My army didn't natively have access to a psyker, but I did on my allies.  If I REALLY wanted to be able to score the 'Cast' objective, then that choice also meant that my opponent would also get the 'kill a psyker'.  This became incredibly competitive as EVERY unit choice had to now factor in 'how easy is it going to be for my opponent to score the VP'?  

Since it never made it to that step by those who struggled with it, it was perceived as a problem that needed to be corrected.  Like @Requizensaid, he wouldn't be able to kill X if his opponent didn't have that particular element.  One popular solution, I first saw it on MWG, was to be able to re-draw a card if that card could never be completed.  Take a moment to think about that.  An Eldar player CHOOSES to not bring a Wraithknight, and players feel that they should be rewarded again by being able to skip that objective?  Anyone that plays MTG will also tell you the additional side effect of this method, and that was 'Card Advantage'.  Example:  I managed to tune one of my lists to make it so that there were 6 objectives that my opponent couldn't get, and another 2-3 that would be extremely difficult to accomplish.  By playing by the redraw method, my opponent no longer had a 36 objective deck, but a 30 objective deck.  True that I also had the ability to redraw, but it flips the mechanic again by rewarding those who did diversify.  There was no effective way to equalize the objectives unless you made sure everyone was playing with a full deck.  

The ITC did MUCH MUCH MUCH worse than this though.  They reduced the objectives down to 6.  To be fair, once you took out the copies of the same objectives, each player would only have 18-24 different objectives depending on which of the 3 deck options you used.  They completely destroyed the introduced mechanic by making sure that no objectives would be impossible.  While I can understand the mentality behind the decision, the biggest effect it had is that players did not have to drastically alter their existing lists to continue playing.  It was a HUGE step backward toward the very thing that ITC was hoping to break.

That wasn't enough for the ITC to ruin the game though.  This wasn't the result the Maelstrom missions themselves, but problems that they created by fixing something that wasn't broken in the first place.  Like shooting holes in a boat to stop it from leaking.  They narrowed the number of objective markers from 6 down to 2, so that slower, or more elite armies would have a fair fight at being able to score objectives.  Never mind that this gave the faster moving or cheaper armies a chance to win.  They removed the random locations of the objectives by fixing them to set points regardless of the scenario.  Never mind that armies that relied on avoidance, now had to go through units that they would normally tie up or ignore, or have the objective in a defensible position.  Maelstrom missions remained active until they were completed, forcing players to focus on them during the game to score more points.  The ITC reset the objectives each turn regardless.  They also introduced this idea of holding an objective for a turn to be able to claim it.  Let's ignore the armies that have the ability to completely remove their opponent off the objective to claim it, then leave it, instead of being forced to stay there and get slaughtered.

The results of this were reflected throughout the ITC.  Hard to kill units, especially Deathstars, only had to be in one of two places, leaving their opponents with no other option.  Maelstrom countered this by having multiple objectives that made it difficult for those units to be in different places.  There was no penalty for bringing big units, like Wraithknights, IK's, or even Deathstars, since there were never any objectives to kill them.  Individual units were affected as well.  Dual-Gladius became a powerhouse because of the 14+ Obsec units that only ever had to fight over 2 objectives opposed to six.  Tanky units, like Wraithknights, and Necron Wraiths had their values exaggerated because you didn't score the point by bringing the units that scored points the way they did in Maelstrom missions. 

The end result was the ITC created a bubble where it was easier to ignore the one problem, then create more problems based off of the solution.  This resulted in an artificial ranking of armies that may or may not have performed well had they been forced to actually play 40k.  I want to be CLEAR, that I actually do not have a problem with this as long as it stayed within the event.  The problems didn't arise until THIS replaced all aspects of 40k.  From local tournaments, to casual gaming, to offering listbuilding or purchasing advice to new players.  When these players copy these ITC lists, they can't figure out WHY they don't perform well when playing 40k.

The biggest insult is that the opportunity to wipe the slate clean arrived with 8th.  They chose to maintain this artificial bubble.  We've still got Maelstrom, regardless of my thoughts on the improvements or nerfing of the scenarios, it's still the current state of the game.  We've even gotten updated missions in the Chap. Approved.   I quoted the article from WHC where listbuilding should factor in the 12 scenarios.  Not the 12 scenarios and also the additional scenarios that events choose to supplement. The ITC is no longer considered competitive because lists that focus on these 12 scenarios will not do well in the ITC.

Saw this after I wrote all this.  First, thank you for the support, it's nice to know I'm not alone.  Not going to go back and delete it all, since I've put my thoughts down in the most 'safe zone' approach that I can apply.  It's done, and I thank those that read it.  

I think you've managed to say it better than I could, in that the ITC isn't the ONLY way to run the event.  You bring up a good point, and I've got to agree and give the FLG guys credit here as well.  I KNOW they don't stick to the ITC scenarios and play 'casual' scenarios as well.  The ITC pack even invites players to not use the ITC pack and still run the event.  It's great marketing, and it's a great way to get players to attend your events.  I wish they could see how they've got a zealous cult that follows their format.  Even if they did show up, I'm not sure those are the kind of players that I would want to have at my event.  I do not have fun when I attend ITC events (to support my friends who are running it).  I wouldn't want players showing up to mine and complaining about how they didn't find it fun because I DIDN'T implement the changes or see the game the way they do.

 

That said, this pack is just the beginning of the road that the ITC will drag AoS through.  The intent is to make it so that we will see some diversity in the army rankings.  The results will show that some will, while it won't impact others at all.  The final result will be an altered ranking of what is considered good anyways.  Ironically, the only difference between this one and the one that exists under the current setup is that GW isn't dictating which armies are good/bad.  So what are you truly hoping to accomplish when change the game into something other than AoS, only to end up with a fan driven result as opposed to a company controlled one?
 

Have you played the ITC champs missions for 40k?? At all, how many times? Where are you in the rankings?? Did you just get tabled constantly. I’m really tired of your constant negativity. You’re a strong keyboard warrior my friend. 

[PhantomPhixer]

1 hour ago, svnvaldez said:

I don't want to be overly mean but look... This is a joke, AoS Knife to the Heart battleplan "Objectives" is spelled "Objectivs", main pack destroyed is spelled  "distroyed". There were more errors that have been edited and fixed and I hope this continues. Knowing how difficult it is to write a player pack the TO could have just said:

WYSIWYG, GH2, and FAQs

Or asked people to play test and dig through the pack with a fine tooth comb.

There is still time for this to be fixed so hopefully it gets done.

Couple of thoughts here. 

  If the secondary missions have no chance of affecting the outcome, what is the point of having them?  I personally feel that this is done to penalize the all spam-all the time list bringers who just bring skyfires and let the dice roll on.  Having impactful secondaries in the mix means everyone will have to think a little harder about how they play the games.  The top players will still be top players, but net-listers will have a slightly harder time of it.  Armies that are not 'top tier' will have a path to victory that does not automatically exclude them, as most of the vanilla GHB17 scenarios do.  This pack just takes a little more effort and thought, and is that not the point of a tournament? 

  The actual mechanics of the secret objectives can be dealt with easily enough.  it's really not that big of a deal. 

  And, since I feel the need to snark, do you have an example of your major event player pack we could peruse?  Reasonably easy to nit-pick early versions of a document that took a lot of time and effort to develop.  I'd be interested to see your meaningful addition to the community.

  There is still 6 weeks to fix spelling errors...

 

[svnvaldez]

I removed some of the wording of previous posts, some was uncalled for and not constructive. The TO is aware of this thread, the secret aspect is clearly an area of abuse, see above posts, its difficult to see how, when it takes 10 mins to fix, that it has not been.

11 minutes ago, PhantomPhixer said:

And, since I feel the need to snark, do you have an example of your major event player pack we could peruse?  Reasonably easy to nit-pick early versions of a document that took a lot of time and effort to develop.  I'd be interested to see your meaningful addition to the community.

I actually do, I have removed the secret element of field missions, simplified bonus missions, and made the split of points 7/7.

7 AoS Battleplan - Knife to the Heart (2).docx

LVO Age of Sigmar Championship (3).docx

All I would like to see is the points changed, reduction of choices so the time needed reduced, and the secret missions removed or cards added.

[svnvaldez]

A few more packs that are good. SCGT also uses side missions that are implemented well.

GW Heats

https://warhammerworld.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/Printer-Friendly-AOS-GT-2017-Event-Pack.pdf

Facehammer GT

http://facehammer.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/FHGT2017-event-pack.pdf

SCGT

http://heelanhammer.com/SCGTdownloads/SCGT17TPv1.2.pdf

http://heelanhammer.com/SCGTdownloads/SCGT17BPv1.3.pdf

S&W event

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwPmpi51iD1NYnh6djBydjJsYVk/view

Blackout

http://hwcdn.libsyn.com/p/6/b/a/6bada79c305ea01f/BLACKOUT_2017.pdf?c_id=16603629&expiration=1513222773&hwt=0722f23e4cb4733dce416b9ea51f6315

LVO 2017

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tKORiA_YiQPR5W4vryL4ZiFwFjzNMtxmviqSdXPY2C8/mobilebasic?pli=1

Adepticon 2018

http://www.adepticon.org/wpfiles/2018/2018aoschamp.pdf

http://www.adepticon.org/wpfiles/2018/2018conduct.pdf

http://www.adepticon.org/wpfiles/2018/2018model.pdf

[Drofnum]

Quote

If the secondary missions have no chance of affecting the outcome, what is the point of having them?  I personally feel that this is done to penalize the all spam-all the time list bringers who just bring skyfires and let the dice roll on.  Having impactful secondaries in the mix means everyone will have to think a little harder about how they play the games.  The top players will still be top players, but net-listers will have a slightly harder time of it.  Armies that are not 'top tier' will have a path to victory that does not automatically exclude them, as most of the vanilla GHB17 scenarios do.  This pack just takes a little more effort and thought, and is that not the point of a tournament? 

I think the pack does the opposite though.  The top tier armies are top tier because they do just about everything well and 1-2 things very well.  Lower tier armies have more obvious weaknesses and tend to have to make up for that by focusing on a specific area, be it quick movement to cap objectives, or being hard to kill, etc.  The side objectives at least heavily favor an army that can kill specific things, the secret objectives do a better job of having variety but are prone to being gamed as already described.

What happens with the armies that arent top tier now is that they will be forced to either play for the battleplan and hope for the extras or vice versa, since generally they will not have the tools to do both.  I honestly dont see the pack increasing diversity at all, it seems to simply narrow down what you can take to the armies that are already top tier. 

I'm playing some games on Saturday so i'll see how it plays then, but running my KO all I can see is that i'm going to further focus into what makes them a decent army and just snipe heros.  Its definitely not doing anything to diversify my game.

[Silchas_Ruin]

Not played with these rules yet, but I like the idea of bonus objectives. 

The 1 issue I have is if the strongest armies can just play as they would anyway and get more points. Assassinate, Kingslayer and Strike first have already been named for this reason. The strongest armies in the current meta will probably get those anyway, so just makes it harder to outplay them and win on points while they kill you.

Make a higher number of bonus objectives not killing things and I would be happy. The way the basic missions work its hard, but possible to outplay a stronger army and win on points while removing your models from the table. Bonus objectives should not make that harder. Which I feel like giving extra points for killing units you would kill anyway will do. I had games where I won with 2-3 points at the end, while I have 10% of my army left and my opponent has 50%. With bonus objectives giving points for killing playing smart will probably no longer win me a game like that.