Jump to content

Qark

Members
  • Content Count

    187
  • Joined

  • Last visited


Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Qark got a reaction from ldmonetakoehler in Need Kill Point Missions to Counter Spreadsheet MSU   
    I dont think some of you quite  understand what I mean by a pass mechanic. It's not a set number of passes. It's not each player gets 3 per turn for example.
    You can only pass if you have less activations remaining than your opponent and once you start activating you can no longer pass. 
    Let's say player A has 5 units and player B has 3 units. A has more activations than B so A can't pass. A activates a unit so they have 4 remaining. B has less units than A so they can choose to pass, they do. A still has more than B so they activate again, leaving each player with three unactivated units. Now B can't pass and must activate. From there you alternate like normal. If A had 10 activations and B had 6, B could pass until A only had 6 left. Then they alternate. 
    The problem passing is trying to solve is that when two teams set up across from one another the person with less activations is forced to move forward into firing range of the person with more activations. Lets say A has 2 activations and B has 1 and its the start of game. All units have range 3 weapons. They deploy range 5 from each other. Let's say B goes first. At range 5 a single move won't let B shoot so they have a choise; move and get shot by both of A's units or don't move so they don't get killed. Not moving isn't a viable option because this is an objective game. So B moves towards the objective if they move once they are in range 4 and if they move twice they are in range 3. Now A has two activations that can move and shoot at B's unit or aim and shoot at B's unit depending on how far B moved.
    Lets look at the same case as above but this time with a pass. B goes first, A has more activations than B, B passes. A must activate one unit as they can't pass. A moves forward because it's an objective based game. The unit A moved isn't in range to shoot or is in range but doesn't have enough actions left. B must activate now that the activation count is equal, they can move and shoot at the unit A just activated. Then A activates their last unit who can move and shoot at B.
    Really as long as you can't pass and both players are skilled at the game the person with fewer units is going to be taking multiple shots from the person with more without being able to return fire. You might say "hide behind terrain" sure. I guess, if you want to give the opponent control over where you can and can't go. I am playing with 25% of the table covered in terrain and about half - three quarters of that being Los blocking. From my experience you need significantly more Los blocking terrain than that before the opponent with more activations is no longer controlling where you can and can't go. 
  2. Like
    Qark got a reaction from R3dReVenge in Need Kill Point Missions to Counter Spreadsheet MSU   
    My local meta hasn't change for a few waves. A few upgrades change here and there and maybe a unit swaps around after a release but otherwise game have felt the same for months. That is the definition of stale. Yes, new factions will change things but they aren't out yet, wont be out for a few months, and things are stale now. Furthermore I would go as far as to say the new factions will not be competitive initially because they don't have access to strike teams right off the bat. People will still use the new factions because they are new and exciting but Ill be very surprised if we see them at top tables.
    I don't think anyone wants hero armies. All I want is to not have to choose between running 3 sniper teams or not having a chance of placing in a tournament.
    Counter-counter point: The good players run 3 sniper teams because it makes their list good and they are looking to win.
    Not true really. If you have a large enough sample size you can draw conclusions without controlling every variable such as the person behind the list. I don't know if we have enough data for that though, I haven't looked at it, so I can only comment on my local meta; those who were winning before snipers release are still winning after sniper release, and those who win run 3 snipers. When you talk to these people about not running 3 snipers they say things along the lines of "why would I do that? I want a chance at winning."
    Snipers have been around for a while I so far I haven't found anything to effectively deal with them that doesn't involve 3 snipers of your own. That's the issue. Yes chewie works well but unless you have snipers of your own you'll just hemorrhage wounds. You need something that can counterattack and that something is snipers.
  3. Like
    Qark reacted to Derrault in Need Kill Point Missions to Counter Spreadsheet MSU   
    Yes, we do not have anything approaching a large sample size. Large is on the order of tends of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of examples.
    With the actual sample sizes, there’s no valid conclusions that can be drawn.
  4. Like
    Qark reacted to Derrault in Need Kill Point Missions to Counter Spreadsheet MSU   
    I’m talking statistical confidence, which you do not have using a hodgepodge of information that doesn’t account for literally dozens of variables. 
  5. Like
    Qark reacted to Angry Ewok in Need Kill Point Missions to Counter Spreadsheet MSU   
    Top 8 at Adepticon: of the 8 top list, 5 had 3 Snipers, the other 3 lists had 2 Sniper teams each. 
    Top 6 at LVO did see one list with a single Sniper team in it (augmented by naked Stormtroopers,) Between the 6 lists there were 14 sniper teams... 
    14 list => 1 list did not include multiple sniper teams
    The data pretty directly refutes your statement.  When a non-mandatory unit is that prolific across both factions of the game at the highest levels of play it is a massive issue
    My concern is that activation count is more important than tactical usefulness in list design right now in legion... Snipers are the cheapest non core option available so they are spammed, they may not be broken but high activation count is...
    To my original point, I think we need mission changes to reduce the activation arms race so we can quite counting activations so much and actually take units on their merits not simply their point costs. 
    The design space for a game with only objective based win conditions is limited and results in the uniform formula for success we see now in the list mentioned above.
     
  6. Like
    Qark got a reaction from SirCormac in Need Kill Point Missions to Counter Spreadsheet MSU   
    I dont think kill points will help because the types of lists you want to avoid are also the best at killing stuff for the most part.
    I agree something needs to change and soon because I am mighty bored with tournament play at the moment.
    I think the two things that'll help are making strike teams unique and adding a pass mechanic.
    Unique strike teams will still allow people to run three snipers if they want but they'll have to pay for the full commando teams for the second and third snipers drastically reducing activation spam. 
    A pass mechanic will allow smaller armies more control so they aren't forced to move into range of the enemy on those early turns.
  7. Like
    Qark got a reaction from Angry Ewok in Need Kill Point Missions to Counter Spreadsheet MSU   
    I dont think some of you quite  understand what I mean by a pass mechanic. It's not a set number of passes. It's not each player gets 3 per turn for example.
    You can only pass if you have less activations remaining than your opponent and once you start activating you can no longer pass. 
    Let's say player A has 5 units and player B has 3 units. A has more activations than B so A can't pass. A activates a unit so they have 4 remaining. B has less units than A so they can choose to pass, they do. A still has more than B so they activate again, leaving each player with three unactivated units. Now B can't pass and must activate. From there you alternate like normal. If A had 10 activations and B had 6, B could pass until A only had 6 left. Then they alternate. 
    The problem passing is trying to solve is that when two teams set up across from one another the person with less activations is forced to move forward into firing range of the person with more activations. Lets say A has 2 activations and B has 1 and its the start of game. All units have range 3 weapons. They deploy range 5 from each other. Let's say B goes first. At range 5 a single move won't let B shoot so they have a choise; move and get shot by both of A's units or don't move so they don't get killed. Not moving isn't a viable option because this is an objective game. So B moves towards the objective if they move once they are in range 4 and if they move twice they are in range 3. Now A has two activations that can move and shoot at B's unit or aim and shoot at B's unit depending on how far B moved.
    Lets look at the same case as above but this time with a pass. B goes first, A has more activations than B, B passes. A must activate one unit as they can't pass. A moves forward because it's an objective based game. The unit A moved isn't in range to shoot or is in range but doesn't have enough actions left. B must activate now that the activation count is equal, they can move and shoot at the unit A just activated. Then A activates their last unit who can move and shoot at B.
    Really as long as you can't pass and both players are skilled at the game the person with fewer units is going to be taking multiple shots from the person with more without being able to return fire. You might say "hide behind terrain" sure. I guess, if you want to give the opponent control over where you can and can't go. I am playing with 25% of the table covered in terrain and about half - three quarters of that being Los blocking. From my experience you need significantly more Los blocking terrain than that before the opponent with more activations is no longer controlling where you can and can't go. 
  8. Like
    Qark got a reaction from R3dReVenge in Need Kill Point Missions to Counter Spreadsheet MSU   
    I dont think some of you quite  understand what I mean by a pass mechanic. It's not a set number of passes. It's not each player gets 3 per turn for example.
    You can only pass if you have less activations remaining than your opponent and once you start activating you can no longer pass. 
    Let's say player A has 5 units and player B has 3 units. A has more activations than B so A can't pass. A activates a unit so they have 4 remaining. B has less units than A so they can choose to pass, they do. A still has more than B so they activate again, leaving each player with three unactivated units. Now B can't pass and must activate. From there you alternate like normal. If A had 10 activations and B had 6, B could pass until A only had 6 left. Then they alternate. 
    The problem passing is trying to solve is that when two teams set up across from one another the person with less activations is forced to move forward into firing range of the person with more activations. Lets say A has 2 activations and B has 1 and its the start of game. All units have range 3 weapons. They deploy range 5 from each other. Let's say B goes first. At range 5 a single move won't let B shoot so they have a choise; move and get shot by both of A's units or don't move so they don't get killed. Not moving isn't a viable option because this is an objective game. So B moves towards the objective if they move once they are in range 4 and if they move twice they are in range 3. Now A has two activations that can move and shoot at B's unit or aim and shoot at B's unit depending on how far B moved.
    Lets look at the same case as above but this time with a pass. B goes first, A has more activations than B, B passes. A must activate one unit as they can't pass. A moves forward because it's an objective based game. The unit A moved isn't in range to shoot or is in range but doesn't have enough actions left. B must activate now that the activation count is equal, they can move and shoot at the unit A just activated. Then A activates their last unit who can move and shoot at B.
    Really as long as you can't pass and both players are skilled at the game the person with fewer units is going to be taking multiple shots from the person with more without being able to return fire. You might say "hide behind terrain" sure. I guess, if you want to give the opponent control over where you can and can't go. I am playing with 25% of the table covered in terrain and about half - three quarters of that being Los blocking. From my experience you need significantly more Los blocking terrain than that before the opponent with more activations is no longer controlling where you can and can't go. 
  9. Like
    Qark got a reaction from CaptainRocket in Need Kill Point Missions to Counter Spreadsheet MSU   
    I wholeheartedly agree. 
  10. Like
    Qark got a reaction from CaptainRocket in Need Kill Point Missions to Counter Spreadsheet MSU   
    I dont think some of you quite  understand what I mean by a pass mechanic. It's not a set number of passes. It's not each player gets 3 per turn for example.
    You can only pass if you have less activations remaining than your opponent and once you start activating you can no longer pass. 
    Let's say player A has 5 units and player B has 3 units. A has more activations than B so A can't pass. A activates a unit so they have 4 remaining. B has less units than A so they can choose to pass, they do. A still has more than B so they activate again, leaving each player with three unactivated units. Now B can't pass and must activate. From there you alternate like normal. If A had 10 activations and B had 6, B could pass until A only had 6 left. Then they alternate. 
    The problem passing is trying to solve is that when two teams set up across from one another the person with less activations is forced to move forward into firing range of the person with more activations. Lets say A has 2 activations and B has 1 and its the start of game. All units have range 3 weapons. They deploy range 5 from each other. Let's say B goes first. At range 5 a single move won't let B shoot so they have a choise; move and get shot by both of A's units or don't move so they don't get killed. Not moving isn't a viable option because this is an objective game. So B moves towards the objective if they move once they are in range 4 and if they move twice they are in range 3. Now A has two activations that can move and shoot at B's unit or aim and shoot at B's unit depending on how far B moved.
    Lets look at the same case as above but this time with a pass. B goes first, A has more activations than B, B passes. A must activate one unit as they can't pass. A moves forward because it's an objective based game. The unit A moved isn't in range to shoot or is in range but doesn't have enough actions left. B must activate now that the activation count is equal, they can move and shoot at the unit A just activated. Then A activates their last unit who can move and shoot at B.
    Really as long as you can't pass and both players are skilled at the game the person with fewer units is going to be taking multiple shots from the person with more without being able to return fire. You might say "hide behind terrain" sure. I guess, if you want to give the opponent control over where you can and can't go. I am playing with 25% of the table covered in terrain and about half - three quarters of that being Los blocking. From my experience you need significantly more Los blocking terrain than that before the opponent with more activations is no longer controlling where you can and can't go. 
  11. Like
    Qark got a reaction from CaptainRocket in Need Kill Point Missions to Counter Spreadsheet MSU   
    I dont think kill points will help because the types of lists you want to avoid are also the best at killing stuff for the most part.
    I agree something needs to change and soon because I am mighty bored with tournament play at the moment.
    I think the two things that'll help are making strike teams unique and adding a pass mechanic.
    Unique strike teams will still allow people to run three snipers if they want but they'll have to pay for the full commando teams for the second and third snipers drastically reducing activation spam. 
    A pass mechanic will allow smaller armies more control so they aren't forced to move into range of the enemy on those early turns.
  12. Like
    Qark reacted to manoftomorrow010 in Need Kill Point Missions to Counter Spreadsheet MSU   
    Thanks, that's why I asked for clarification
    I had a whole reply to this typed up, but it got eaten by the internet  What I remember saying, I typed again, more briefly, below lol
    I don't think the player with fewer activations is "forced" to move into a space to get shot to pieces. That's why we have terrain! Sure you want to get into an advantageous position for objectives, but that doesn't mean you have to run your troops into open space on turn one, just because you have to activate someone.
    The fact that swarms of (presumably) weaker units within high-activation lists can overwhelm elite units in lower-activation lists feels very appropriate, to me. It's on FFG to properly reflect that difference, though. The value of an activation currently, seems way more valuable than the elite, high-cost units, which is the problem.
    I think the main problem with high activation lists is mainly rooted in the cost:benefit ratio for Sniper Strike Teams themselves. Their cost compared to the value of an activation, is far too imbalanced.
  13. Like
    Qark reacted to manoftomorrow010 in Need Kill Point Missions to Counter Spreadsheet MSU   
    The bold I do not agree with at all, as that is far too limiting. The fact that you're bringing 4 squads with Z6, or grenades, isn't really the problem, is it?
    Before this game, I played Heroclix, and by nature of the IPs (comics-based stuff primarily), tournaments regularly featured unique limitations every week on what you could build or play. The official Tournament format (that of Worlds, etc. at conventions) was just 300-points, modern age. But, every store that I have ever played in rarely, if ever, just set-up weekly events that featured that official format.
    Of course, that would not be possible in Legion because you only have 2-4 factions, but, I think FFG should vastly increase the number of mission and condition cards, which is where this game can "officially" feature the type of variance you're describing above.
    Sure, tournament organizers can do anything they want if the players agree on it, for our first couple of "seasons" we used operations before just settling into the 800 generic format.
  14. Thanks
    Qark got a reaction from manoftomorrow010 in Need Kill Point Missions to Counter Spreadsheet MSU   
    I dont think some of you quite  understand what I mean by a pass mechanic. It's not a set number of passes. It's not each player gets 3 per turn for example.
    You can only pass if you have less activations remaining than your opponent and once you start activating you can no longer pass. 
    Let's say player A has 5 units and player B has 3 units. A has more activations than B so A can't pass. A activates a unit so they have 4 remaining. B has less units than A so they can choose to pass, they do. A still has more than B so they activate again, leaving each player with three unactivated units. Now B can't pass and must activate. From there you alternate like normal. If A had 10 activations and B had 6, B could pass until A only had 6 left. Then they alternate. 
    The problem passing is trying to solve is that when two teams set up across from one another the person with less activations is forced to move forward into firing range of the person with more activations. Lets say A has 2 activations and B has 1 and its the start of game. All units have range 3 weapons. They deploy range 5 from each other. Let's say B goes first. At range 5 a single move won't let B shoot so they have a choise; move and get shot by both of A's units or don't move so they don't get killed. Not moving isn't a viable option because this is an objective game. So B moves towards the objective if they move once they are in range 4 and if they move twice they are in range 3. Now A has two activations that can move and shoot at B's unit or aim and shoot at B's unit depending on how far B moved.
    Lets look at the same case as above but this time with a pass. B goes first, A has more activations than B, B passes. A must activate one unit as they can't pass. A moves forward because it's an objective based game. The unit A moved isn't in range to shoot or is in range but doesn't have enough actions left. B must activate now that the activation count is equal, they can move and shoot at the unit A just activated. Then A activates their last unit who can move and shoot at B.
    Really as long as you can't pass and both players are skilled at the game the person with fewer units is going to be taking multiple shots from the person with more without being able to return fire. You might say "hide behind terrain" sure. I guess, if you want to give the opponent control over where you can and can't go. I am playing with 25% of the table covered in terrain and about half - three quarters of that being Los blocking. From my experience you need significantly more Los blocking terrain than that before the opponent with more activations is no longer controlling where you can and can't go. 
  15. Like
    Qark got a reaction from Tirion in Need Kill Point Missions to Counter Spreadsheet MSU   
    I dont think kill points will help because the types of lists you want to avoid are also the best at killing stuff for the most part.
    I agree something needs to change and soon because I am mighty bored with tournament play at the moment.
    I think the two things that'll help are making strike teams unique and adding a pass mechanic.
    Unique strike teams will still allow people to run three snipers if they want but they'll have to pay for the full commando teams for the second and third snipers drastically reducing activation spam. 
    A pass mechanic will allow smaller armies more control so they aren't forced to move into range of the enemy on those early turns.
  16. Like
    Qark reacted to Irokenics in Need Kill Point Missions to Counter Spreadsheet MSU   
    Whilst I agree the trooper and sniper spam is real. I'm not sure a kill points objective solves that.
    High activation lists majority of the time can take down the heavy hitters of low activations list without losing much in return.
     
  17. Like
    Qark reacted to Angry Ewok in Need Kill Point Missions to Counter Spreadsheet MSU   
    I do, I just think its sad that at the highest levels, ppl cop out and spam units because its easy to run and safe, robbing games of diversity and depth legion actually has but is often not displayed on the top tables.  Its like cut game armada all the time.  Which is not fun to watch or play.
  18. Like
    Qark reacted to Angry Ewok in Need Kill Point Missions to Counter Spreadsheet MSU   
    I am continually annoyed by the boring, spreadsheet efficient, tactically passive, list composition in most top competitive legion lists.  There are some stand outs that break out of the mold and I admire them and hope they will continue to find success.  We need ppl like them to break up the current snooze fest.  
    Sadly and unimaginatively, the general formula for high level tournament success is really pretty simple if you look at the reports though.  You must take your faction's best (aka most long range) troop option, and not just a few, you had better spam them hard.  Most lists feature 5-6, Z-6 Troopers or DLT Troopers, then to further pad your activation advantage you have built by spamming efficient troop choices, you then spam your faction's sniper teams.  So now that you have filled out your obligatory 8-9 units, you then actually consider what units you like to use, or think have tactical wrinkles worth considering. 
    What you don't see much of are units that exceed the 70 point range, anything above that is hard to justify when you factor in the loss of activations it represents, such a unit must offer something amazing to warrant its inclusion.  People say vehicles are bad in legion, why is that?  Because not only do they not score in every mission, but they also fall short of this 70 point or less bench mark of inclusion, and can not normally be justified as one of your above 70 point splurge units...
    The end result is a bunch of lists that look basically the same, and fight basically the same, and typically not in a very dynamic or tactically deep/challenging way.   They all excel in attrition fights because as enemy units attempt to close, they must spend actions to move instead of taking other beneficial actions like Aim, Dodge, etc.  All other things being equal, the army that gets to take aim or dodge actions instead of moving will out perform an army that does.  An army with equal range and more activations will end up getting more shots on their opponent as they wait the other side out and hit them once they have moved into range.  This issue only gets worse when you factor in suppression.  An army with more units can create more suppression ( thus incentivizing activations even more).  We all also see the massive advantage of having more units/activations when setting up a Last/First attack or covering objectives once the enemy no longer can react due to being out activated.
    The cover system is admittedly designed to encourage larger dice pools, but when crits get around this limitation and ALL missions are objective based, it is nowhere near enough to limit whole sale spreadsheet efficiency spam across both factions.  
    As with basically any alternate activation game, having more activations is advantageous.  That is why we have the meta we currently do, a never ending parade of blah armies running the same 4-5 units over and over. 
    Legion needs missions that award points for killing units.  40k is a simplistic, shadow of the tactical depth legion has to offer but they do get one thing right, to counter the overwhelming strength of MSU style lists in objective based games, kill point missions are also included in tournament packets.  This introduces risk to MSU players for spamming units.  
    Imagine the list design space that opens up if players could include a mission in their battle deck that awards 1 VP for each enemy unit killed?  Or even better, if in addition to the VP's earned from holding objectives, you earned 1 VP for every 3 units destroyed.   We would see people reconsidering the ubiquitous sniper teams for sure.  Also there would be less pressure on each unit in your list to conform to the 70 or under template.  Tough, hard hitting units become less of a liability and more of a factor in list design.     
    As it stands I am just not impressed or interested in going to large events and playing against people who seek to create a stand off situation and create just enough of an edge to force the other side to push forward, thereby exposing themselves to the attrition mismatch I outlined above.  The game is not 3 months old any more, all lists should not look the exact same... Put down your calculators and actually play the game, don't just tie the mission and win my killing 1 unit and hiding all game. 
     
     
  19. Like
    Qark got a reaction from Dauerv in The Strike Team Sniper Conundrum   
    There was a thread on this idea a while back. I think it would be really really good for the game. Brings sniper spam down a notch and helps heavy units that quite frankly need some help. 
  20. Like
    Qark got a reaction from Bohemian73 in The Strike Team Sniper Conundrum   
    I agree snipers don't do much against heavies but heavies aren't competitive and so if you bring a heavy you lose to the other units. Not saying its a bad plan, double air speeder is a super fun build that I enjoy and it'll kill the snipers very fast but you don't win tournaments with it. Maybe once the new upgrades come out?
    Leia has a 34% chance to kill both members on the team assuming they have cover. On average you kill 1 sniper team and wound the other two. Good but you still need a sniper team of your own to finish them off. Veers kills a sniper team reliably, and doesn't touch the other two. You still need snipers to finish them off. Anyone who has played snipers once or twice will keep one of the guys out of line of sight so they can't be killed by theses cards. Again, that comes down to terrain setup which is a whole different discussion I feel. At any given tournament you should play on tables with different terrain types and densities so you'll have games where snipers do well and others where they don't but I find that even if you are playing with lots of LOS blocking and they aren't killing guys then they are forcing them to hide and are still very relevant to the game.
    But it isn't just 2 wounds. Its 2 wounds anywhere because of their range. It kills the last guy in a squad running away with an objective. It suppress that unit that needs two moves to make it to the opponents deployment to win the game. The sniper team's power isn't from the ability it kill units. The sniper teams power is the ability to control the game; for them to put their shot where ever they want while staying out of harms way. Even if they don't do much shooting and just allow you to pad out when vital units activate they are worth the measly 44 points.
  21. Like
    Qark reacted to TauntaunScout in Getting Back into it... Will we see larger pt games?   
    When I started in 40k, a boxed 2,000 point Space Marine Army had 41 men and a vehicle in it. Now that game is infected with the sickness of greed. I all but abandoned it for Legion because Legion uses actually playable and paintable sized collections of models like 40k once did.
  22. Like
    Qark reacted to landoro in Getting Back into it... Will we see larger pt games?   
    I wonder how the game and the army build would change if the points and up to 1000p, assuming the force org charts stays the same.
    It is a focus on unit counts in the meta right now and if they inceease the points you might be able to bring in multiple stronger units to counter this which would be great in my opinion.
    But not sure if it would change some thing at all. May be you just chase even more avtivations.
     
  23. Like
    Qark reacted to Jabby in Getting Back into it... Will we see larger pt games?   
    There already is: grand army. It’s a mode where everything (point limit, unit class limits) are doubled and you play on a bigger table
  24. Like
    Qark reacted to Rammstein117 in Getting Back into it... Will we see larger pt games?   
    I kinda hope 800 points stays the way it is, as the standard way to play the game. Nothing can stop people from playing larger games, but for pickup games I don't wanna do 3 hour matches or whatever. I personally dread WH40k, I quit that system a long time ago and have little desire to go back to needing to field so many models at once. Plus I feel like rules wise SW legions units are balanced around the assumption both players will be using 800 points.
  25. Like
    Qark got a reaction from landoro in The Strike Team Sniper Conundrum   
    You could also make snipers range 2-4 instead of any range. Gives other units a chance to do something about them. 
×
×
  • Create New...