|
Post by grubnards on Oct 8, 2012 16:32:45 GMT -5
Netter - Fair enough... just curious, that's all. As with many things, people will never fully see eye-to-eye but at least you are willing to explain why you don't like it rather than just make a blanket statement. If I run into you at the GT, I'll consider buying you a real beer, rather than that water downed swill that you folks drink up north along with your round bacon. Kevin
|
|
|
Post by hyv3mynd on Oct 8, 2012 17:01:02 GMT -5
Out of curiosity, why do you find First Blood to be lame? I find that while this objective is only worth one victory point it adds a whole new level of complexity to the game. In many of the book missions, where holding objectives is key, an even numbered of objectives tends to end up as draws and an odd number of objectives tends to favor the guy who gets to place that last odd numbered objective on his side of the board, that 1 point objective now plays a much more important roll. Many of my 6th edition games have been won and lost by that 1 point. Plus I'm finding that it makes deployment that much more interesting. If I am going first do I want to deploy aggressively to get that extra point right away while taking a risk that my opponent may seize the initiative, now making my decision to deploy aggressively a potentially bad move. Or if I am going second, I now have to consider do I want to hide my weaker units behind cover or out of sight, even though it may deny me a chance to utilize their potential fire power in the first turn. To me, having objectives like First Blood, Slay the Warlord, and Linebreaker make the game much more fun and challenging rather than the previous 5th edition mentality of lining up across from each other and just going for the kill. Excluding them just seems to be like taking the game a step closer back to 5th edition. Just my 2 cents, Kevin This is basically what I was thinking but Kevin said it better. To me, tailoring your list to account for first blood is a valid tactic. It's a bonus point in every single 6th ed book mission and it's the only one that both players cannot claim. Building around scoring or denying first blood is no different than mech spam in 5th ed banking on tons of scoring and contesting units. With 5 objective missions, there's still a benefit to going second as you'll always have the last move to score and contest. First blood negates some of the benefit of going second. Like I said every mission in the book features first blood as a valid VP. People are taking this into account when shifting their armies to function within the new rules. Just like they're considering linebreaker units and durable warlords. Leaving out first blood drastically changes how some armies play out. Considering it's 5 weeks before the main event, most who've been accounting for first blood, warlord, and linebreaker points won't have time to redesign their tournament list and paint replacements.
|
|
|
Post by shaun on Oct 8, 2012 19:30:12 GMT -5
Ok,
Based on the input from you 2 (and I want your opinion in regards to this), I am going to reach out to the rest of the councel with the following idea. We reduce the points per mission objective from 10 to 9 and add in a point each for first blood, kill the warlord and linebreaker. Thoughts?
|
|
pogysnacks
Sergeant
Jeremy Plisk ..um Orks>everything else
Posts: 239
|
Post by pogysnacks on Oct 8, 2012 20:30:07 GMT -5
That's good, simply because im sure most people would like to stay away from 5th ed
|
|
|
Post by shaun on Oct 8, 2012 23:21:38 GMT -5
Ok,
But I guess I don't understand the whole 5th Ed thing. Most of the 6th Ed mission objectives have very similar traits to what were in 5th Ed, 4 th Ed, etc. etc. the only difference is we are having 3 objectives to win and score with separately as opposed to the 6th Ed rule book missions where you have various objectives that add up to one overall score - all or nothing. The previous edition rulebooks always had this same win or lose all focus. Yet For the past few years prior we have run missions that weren't all or nothing when it came to battle points. There were primary, secondary and tertiary objectives. Can you explain to me why we want to change our focus now? What is it about our missions that aren't current and outdated?
I have been and am being objective and open minded about this. I would rather preffer people offer some creative input in how to structure the missions rather than just point out in a negative fashion what they don't agree with. Not for nothing but You could have very easily stated that the revision to adjust the point total was a step in the right direction as opposed to "that's good, simply because I'm sure most people want to stay away from 5th Ed" ?
|
|
|
Post by grubnards on Oct 9, 2012 0:15:59 GMT -5
Shaun,
My comments to netter was just out of curiosity as I hear people gripe about certain aspects of 6th edition and what needs to be cut or nerfed without explanation other than they hate it. At least netter gave a valid reason, which I respect. I don't mind one way or another how a once a year event decides to run their missions. Our local events have been very kind and allowing all of the book missions and special rules so I am happy with that. How the GT counsel decided to run missions at their event will not affect my decision to come.
Hope that helps. Kevin
|
|
|
Post by hyv3mynd on Oct 9, 2012 6:57:51 GMT -5
Ok, But I guess I don't understand the whole 5th Ed thing. Most of the 6th Ed mission objectives have very similar traits to what were in 5th Ed, 4 th Ed, etc. etc. the only difference is we are having 3 objectives to win and score with separately as opposed to the 6th Ed rule book missions where you have various objectives that add up to one overall score - all or nothing. The previous edition rulebooks always had this same win or lose all focus. Yet For the past few years prior we have run missions that weren't all or nothing when it came to battle points. There were primary, secondary and tertiary objectives. Can you explain to me why we want to change our focus now? What is it about our missions that aren't current and outdated? I have been and am being objective and open minded about this. I would rather preffer people offer some creative input in how to structure the missions rather than just point out in a negative fashion what they don't agree with. Not for nothing but You could have very easily stated that the revision to adjust the point total was a step in the right direction as opposed to "that's good, simply because I'm sure most people want to stay away from 5th Ed" ? The proposed inclusion of the 3 bonus points would make it "feel" more like 6th even if each was only worth 1/30th of each game. You could even make them each worth 5bps each out of the 30 per round if you wanted the weight to more closely mirror the importance of each in a book mission. My aversion to "the 5th ed feeling" stems from the use of kill points, victory points (5th ed version), and table quarters. Yes, kill points are still in but are called victory points. The 5th ed victory point mechanic is gone so the use of that term can create confusion. The scoring structure looks to emphasize both scoring objectives and measuring damage caused, so 5th ed victory points could be easily replaced by "kill points" or "modified kill points" for simplicity. Table quarters share a similar mechanic to linebreaker but require potentially 3 quarters whereas linebreaker can be acheived by a single unit. As such, I have no suggestion of a "more 6th ed" way to measure table control. Like I said earlier, it's probable that my view is a minority one and a few have spoken up in opposition which proves it. We all know it's impossible to make everyone happy. Like Kevin, I will attend either way. My disappointment stemmed from the use of 5th ed terminology and mechanics which could potentially discourage people from attending the event. I've seen the event grow over the past 2 years I've attended and only want to see that trend continue.
|
|
|
Post by carlosthecraven on Oct 9, 2012 9:07:56 GMT -5
Hi
My only serious point to make is that there is a language issue with your use of "Kill Points" and "Victory Points", which has been mentioned by others.
I like your combination of objective taking, destroying the enemy and board control, all with equal weighting.
Regarding the 6th ed mechanics of First Blood, Linebreaker and Slay the Warlord: - First Blood - my gut reaction at release was that it was a lousy rule. However, given how strongly 5/6 book missions favour going second by being about objectives, it makes sense to have it in the mix. With that being said, I fully support Netter's suggestion of allowing it to be tied by an opponent on the same game turn. - Linebreaker - your recon and tables quarters objectives do enough to encourage mobility. Linebreaker is a weaker way to try to encourage this. - Slay the Warlord - meh. This one matters very little to me one way or the other, regardless of army choice. I dislike that fact that truly durable warlords are not available to all armies, but those HQs are so expensive that you need to put them in harms way if you want your money's worth.
If you incorporate them, which is an idea I support, I feel that a single point each is a little light but Aaron's suggestion of 5 points each is too strong. To me, they are tactical bonuses which both sides should be able to achieve, not winning conditions. While I would be comfortable with a weighting of 2 points (20% of scoring) personally, how about a compromise of 3 points each (30% of scoring)?
Cheers, Nate
|
|
|
Post by shaun on Oct 9, 2012 11:44:19 GMT -5
Very valid points. How about this. Since we have somewhat equivalent of linebreaker and we may add slay the warlord in place of the table quarters - why don't we make all the missions objectives worth 9 points and first blood worth an additional 3 points (10% of the overall 30 points per round). Does this help tip the scales enough?
|
|
sinistermind
Sergeant
Dice, the perfect example of a love/hate relationship
Posts: 315
|
Post by sinistermind on Oct 9, 2012 12:32:35 GMT -5
i didnt so much have a problem with the original version but what you just said DOES sound better!
|
|
|
Post by hyv3mynd on Oct 9, 2012 12:40:38 GMT -5
Yup sounds good.
|
|
|
Post by shaun on Oct 9, 2012 12:54:26 GMT -5
I've got it out to the group to reply and share their input so we'll see where this goes. I told them I want to get any revisions done ASAP so we can communicate around the websites. Thanks for everyones input and ideas.
|
|
|
Post by fishboy on Oct 9, 2012 14:04:12 GMT -5
I think the points should count as 2 points for Canadians and 10 points for US citizens (proof is required) ;D
|
|
|
Post by bfosburg on Oct 9, 2012 22:46:59 GMT -5
We were playing a game tonight and this came up in regards to the GT. If we roll for the personal trait where we get bonus battle points for killing enemy characters in close combat, will that simply be ignored as part of the GT scoring. Just curious I don't mind either way and also will the Warlord being a scoring unit still be valid?
|
|
|
Post by Catachan Colonel on Oct 10, 2012 7:29:31 GMT -5
I know that i dont have the most extensive 6th ed experience but when it comes to First blood i accept it is a greater boon to shooting armies than hand to hand ones, but from someone who plays Tau Empire i need to get that point because my warlord is the Etheral (He has a higher LD than the Shas'el) and i dont know many armies that wont score a character with 2 toughness 3 wounds and no armor or invun save. I need the first blood point to balance out that my warlord will eventually die.
Just my $0.02
|
|