I would like to give my two cents as I have some experience with this.
An important part of reading a heidegger aff is the methodology you choose to introduce in the 1AC. Much of the discussion on this forum has been about how one gains offense against using the method of poetry, but there are teams who are equally successful using other methodologies. I can think of two teams who read Heidegger Aff's on the national circuit, one from Edina, who read a meditative reflection method, and one from Niles West who have read both a poetry method and a genealogy method. There are pro's and con's to each method, but what I find is that the method is what gains you a lot of your offense against critical ground. It is your access to Ontology that allows you to gain solvency, and the only way you access Ontology is through your method. You can use your method in conjunction with permutations to access many alternatives. As Heidegger is anti-structural, permutations and turns to other K's become extremely easy to make. For instance K's of feminism or race can all be turned by addressing their structural approach to the problems of the status quo. This is where the permutation comes in, as you can claim solvency of the K;s impacts through your methods breaking down of status quo structures.
As for most postmodern K's, I am less familiar with how they may link to a heidegger affirmative. As far as Derrida goes, my understanding of his main philosophy is that it is linked largely to Heidegger's, and addresses many of the same aspects of Heideggerian philosophy with new terminology. I am not sure what a specific link to a heidegger aff may be, but it may have to do with the method chosen.
For Baudrillard, I can honestly say that I find readings of him in round and explanations of him out of round ridiculous and unfounded, but if someone could articulate how this argument may link and what the impact may be, I would very much like to be enlightened. Off the top of my head, defense of your method and what you do in the debate round can probably serve you best. As I have seen teams who read baudrillard struggle most with articulating the link, you best bet may be a well stated no link argument.
As for DnG, I'm not quite sure how their philosophy would answer a heidegger aff, as like heidegger, they also seem to be anti-structural. If someone could explain a link and impact to heidegger in terms of DnG, (without relying on too much jargon), I would appreciate it.
As for Triple O, I find the argument to be stupid. I'll just say it. I also don't think it interacts very well with any aff that tries to access ontology impacts. Heideggerian ontology and other forms introduced by subsequent philosophers are very accessible to the permutation. It would be much more strategic to read a more offensive K, one that does not overlap so much with the affirmative methodology.
The questions you need to ask when figuring out how to answer arguments using your aff are what do you actually solve? An obvious question to a heidegger aff is "what do you actually do," to which the answer is functionally "Nothing." What the aff needs to say in this instance is how the aff will affect current policy making/models of debate/in round education. It is also important to frame your aff in terms of the resolution. If you are just reading Heidegger with no plans on relating it to the topic, that probably won't fly. If you are not using the state, your biggest opponent will probably be framework, which you should equip your 1AC to answer. If you do use the state, shame on you as that goes against many of the arguments you are trying to make. The use of fiat and current models of debate are some of the best links to enframing a Heidegger aff can have. In terms of strat, a non-state ontology aff would probably run into framework more often, but Ontoogy affs that do use the state will probably lose against the K every time. Its also these Aff's that use the state that probably link to the more crazy, left, postmodernist K's people seem to think work best against this aff.
Just my 2 cents. If anyone could answer the questions I posed about Postmodern K's above, I would greatly appreciate it.