Templecon Missions

[andalucien]

My opinion prolly doesn't count for much since I'm not going... but... I will share a lil' secret. Whenever there are mysterious objectives in the mission, I usually ask my opponent if he wants to do a gentleman's agreement to ignore them, since I've never once had everyone successfully remember all the mysterious effects throughout a game.  The opponent has agreed to this in all cases but 1.

[robpro]

I think if you have fixed objective placement for each mission, its as balanced as it can be. Both players have an equal chance of rolling each mysterious choice.

so you like heads or tails to determine advantage?  Sounds legit.

Pretty sure you have less than a 50% chance to get Skyfire, and that 2/3 of the objectives options are helpful. It's almost like we're playing a game of chance here.

What his statement meant, specifically, is that generally one side will get better objectives than the other, and your chances of winning out on that are 50%.

You also have a 50% chance of winning the game too, in theory. I don't see how this is any different but one of many factors.

[keithb]

randomly giving one opponent and advantage in a mission is not a good idea.

Like when one player gets to place 1 more objective than the other.

Silly.

[robpro]

That's like saying long range gunline armies shouldn't have an advantage against assault or shortrange armies in Hammer and Anvil. It's just another part of the game.

[Cryptognomicon]

Just something to keep in mind. These rules "most likely" we not meant to be used in tournament settings....just like all of the other rules that we usually ignore - like the mysterious terrain, Archotech Artifacts or Unique Terrain, etc.  They are meant more for more casual play.  If a TO wants to use mysterious objectives, then why not throw in all the other random crap that is in the books as well?  (I'm not saying at all that this is what I want to happen).
       

[robpro]

I'm fine with including them or leaving them out, I'm not so keen on modifying them.

[Sir_Prometheus]

That's like saying long range gunline armies shouldn't have an advantage against assault or shortrange armies in Hammer and Anvil. It's just another part of the game.

They're not a part of the game if we don't want them to be, frankly.  "It's how GW wrote it" is merely a data point, not a defense. 

[keithb]

That's like saying long range gunline armies shouldn't have an advantage against assault or shortrange armies in Hammer and Anvil. It's just another part of the game.

That is by design.  Other missions favor other armies.

Building in  a random chance advantage?  Stupid.

You can tell the difference right?

[robpro]

That's like saying long range gunline armies shouldn't have an advantage against assault or shortrange armies in Hammer and Anvil. It's just another part of the game.

That is by design.  Other missions favor other armies.

Building in  a random chance advantage?  Stupid.

You can tell the difference right?

I would call this a design, too. I'm fine with including them or leaving them out, but I don't really like the idea of giving free skyfire or +1 cover or whatever to everyone. If you're going to modify them, maybe just throw out the GW chart completely and say it gives the unit holding the objective one free single die reroll per use each player or game turn, just come up with a new mechanic and give it to them all.

And while you say stupid, I say fun. I also want Lords of War and Stronghold Assault stuff in the game all the time, too, so we probably have some ideological differences there.

[Cryptognomicon]

Keith - can you tell us what the scoring rubric for the painting part of the event is going to be?

[Chase]

The primer event is going to use this: