PourSpelur Posted February 17, 2016 Report Share Posted February 17, 2016 Just a little thought experiment, how different would scoring at the beginning of your turn make games look? I take some dudes onto an objective and end my turn. Now you have your entire turn to try to kill off my unit and/or contest it. If I'm still there at the beginning of my turn, I score.Tough, ObSec units would really shine obviously but quick units would still have their place. Don't really have much after that, just spit balling. Any opinions? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestRider Posted February 17, 2016 Report Share Posted February 17, 2016 One of the Elvensword Missions uses something like this for its Tertiary Objective, and it's definitely an interesting twist. As a Primary Objective, tho, I would slightly shift the timing, and have scoring happen at the end of the Opponent's Turn instead of the start of your own. That keeps the first Player from getting a big jump just from their Deployment, and makes it actually worthwhile to play out the bottom of the last Turn of the Game, rather than just checking the score and calling it there, because nothing that happens during that last Turn is going to matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Hanaur Posted February 17, 2016 Report Share Posted February 17, 2016 Just a little thought experiment, how different would scoring at the beginning of your turn make games look? I take some dudes onto an objective and end my turn. Now you have your entire turn to try to kill off my unit and/or contest it. If I'm still there at the beginning of my turn, I score.Tough, ObSec units would really shine obviously but quick units would still have their place. Don't really have much after that, just spit balling. Any opinions? This is how Flames of War works. You essentially must move to the objective and hold on tight. it makes fortitude fairly important and it makes for less "objective jumping" for player two. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
generalripphook Posted February 18, 2016 Report Share Posted February 18, 2016 Id really like that, rewards durability as opposed to fingertip grasp of an objective 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMGraham Posted February 18, 2016 Report Share Posted February 18, 2016 I agree completely. "Take and hold" is something completely different than "take". It seems a really nice middle-ground between the end-of-game winner-takes-all and the tacital objective cards where, if you can hold it for a moment, you win. I imagine games would be lower-scoring and make kill the warlord et al. more influential. With that said, I think first blood is a stupid objective. I'd rather Slay the Warlord and control of table quarters be the standard every-mission VPs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Hanaur Posted February 18, 2016 Report Share Posted February 18, 2016 ITC does the First Strike Objective which basically both players can get. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winterman Posted February 18, 2016 Report Share Posted February 18, 2016 Adepticon 2016 is doing 'during game' progressive objectives like that for the championship. NoVa last year had a mission option that scored that way as well. Will have to wait and see what ITC does this year. They hinted at tweaks to their maelstrom, this included. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Hanaur Posted February 18, 2016 Report Share Posted February 18, 2016 I'm ambivalent to it. I think it's going to disadvantage armies like Dark eldar and others a bit too much probably. I suppose the only way to test the theory is just to play it that way but... it would be interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestRider Posted February 18, 2016 Report Share Posted February 18, 2016 I'm ambivalent to it. I think it's going to disadvantage armies like Dark eldar and others a bit too much probably. I suppose the only way to test the theory is just to play it that way but... it would be interesting. I never got around to actually playing them myself, but one of the things I really liked from the NOVA Missions was the ability to choose, each Game, whether you wanted to score progressively or at the end of the Game, depending on how your Army rolls. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winterman Posted February 18, 2016 Report Share Posted February 18, 2016 I'm ambivalent to it. I think it's going to disadvantage armies like Dark eldar and others a bit too much probably. I suppose the only way to test the theory is just to play it that way but... it would be interesting. Only if it's the sole method to win a mission. All the events I mentioned use it as one factor in several, there's still end game objective grabs and secondaries. Its at least better than book maelstrom which scores in each players turn. Its also a set objective, maelstrom is annoying when you keep getting things that are improbable for you to score and your opponent gets claim objective behind his gunline and kill a unit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Hanaur Posted February 18, 2016 Report Share Posted February 18, 2016 Maelstrom IS my favorite way to play. I enjoy it more. I feel like I'm not stomping on an opponent, just trying to get my missions done. They tend to be bloody battles since you have to kind of risk your stuff more often and I honestly never feel supr bad if I lose playing Maelstrom. I think doing it in Tournaments is okay, like the ITC wants you to. I kind of feel like Eternal War missions make more sense for tournament play, but I guess they were looking for a happy middle ground as they do on other things no matter the cost. If you make objectives score at the tp of the turn though, there are definitely some list building changes you'd want to make for sure. Scatter Bikes surely would lose some (though not all) of their lustre. It would significantly impact list building. In a good way or a bad way is impossible to say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xavier319 Posted February 21, 2016 Report Share Posted February 21, 2016 ITC scoring happens at the end of each game turn. so the second player has the scoring advantage, while the first player has the alpha strike advantage. unless you're playing drop pods null deploy. then you have both. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestRider Posted February 21, 2016 Report Share Posted February 21, 2016 ITC scoring happens at the end of each game turn. so the second player has the scoring advantage, while the first player has the alpha strike advantage. unless you're playing drop pods null deploy. then you have both. But usually get hammered in Purge the Alien. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Hanaur Posted February 21, 2016 Report Share Posted February 21, 2016 But usually get hammered in Purge the Alien. Yeah transport spam always runs that risk. I sked my friend at 1500 points how many units his Battle Company had. his Answer: 24. So i was like "so basically I can lose all but one Drone of my army a long as you lose 12 transports... Hmm... Lets get started! Hehehe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talonwinter Posted February 22, 2016 Report Share Posted February 22, 2016 Maelstrom IS my favorite way to play. I enjoy it more. I feel like I'm not stomping on an opponent, just trying to get my missions done. They tend to be bloody battles since you have to kind of risk your stuff more often and I honestly never feel supr bad if I lose playing Maelstrom. I think doing it in Tournaments is okay, like the ITC wants you to. I kind of feel like Eternal War missions make more sense for tournament play, but I guess they were looking for a happy middle ground as they do on other things no matter the cost. If you make objectives score at the tp of the turn though, there are definitely some list building changes you'd want to make for sure. Scatter Bikes surely would lose some (though not all) of their lustre. It would significantly impact list building. In a good way or a bad way is impossible to say. Maelstrom is my lest fav. It has almost always ended in games with one guy with 14 point and the other guy with 3 or 4. those games have always left me with a sour taste in my mouth. I the ITC mission at lest have some middle ground where if my army can't do one it can go for the other. I would like to see some changes in there maelstrom side thoughm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Hanaur Posted February 22, 2016 Report Share Posted February 22, 2016 Yeah i mean everyone will feel differently about it and I suppose that's to be expected. I don't experience the disparities you mention very often though. It's happened I suppose but its not been the rule. I think that some of it comes to how mobile you're willing to play. Eternal War is more of what I want at tournaments. As much as i enjoy the more fun Maelstrom, i think Eternal War challenges you more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.