Battleground 40k Invitational Scenarios - BETA

[Chase]

Here's a look at what we're thinking as far as scenarios go for the Invitational.  They are in rough draft shape as of this post.  We are looking for feedback from players that have taken some time to play them.  Some are pretty straight forward, some are a bit different.

Rough deployment and scoring rules for each scenario. CLICK THIS


Round 1

Deployment
Dawn of War (BRB, p 119)
Each lateral Table Quarter is 48" long and 12" tall.

Primary
A player scores points at the end of the game for each lateral section in which that player has a Scoring Unit. Refer to the diagram for the value of each lateral section. (Your deployment zone is worth only 2 points for you, but 9 points for your opponent, and vice versa!) If both players have a scoring unit in a lateral section, the lateral section is contested and neither player scores points.
Opponent's Deployment - 9 pts
No Man's Land #2 - 6 pts
No Man's Land #1 - 4 pts
Your Deployment - 2 pts

Secondary
A player wins this mission objective by having more units completely within No Man's Land #1 and #2. The entire model/base must be in this zone.
Win 14, Draw 7, Lose 0

Tertiary
Point Differential

Special Rules
For this mission, only Scoring Units count as Denial Units.
Night Fight



Round 2

Deployment
Vanguard Strike (BRB, p119)

Primary
Players place 5 objectives on the board, 1 in the center and one each in the center of each table quadrant. Players win this mission objective by controlling more objectives at the end of the game than their opponent.
Win 21, Draw 10, Loss 0

Secondary
Purge the Alien (Kill Points) (BRB, p127). At the end of the game, each player receives a Kill Point for each enemy unit that has been completely destroyed. Units that are falling back at the end of the game, and units that are not on the board at the end of the game, count as destroyed for the purposes of this mission.

Players win this mission objective by scoring 3 more Kill Points than their opponent.
Win 14, Draw 7, Loss 0

Tertiary
Point Differential

Special Rules
Night Fight



Round 3

Deployment
Dawn of War (BRB, p 119)

Primary
3 Relics
Place one Relic in the center of the board. Place the other two Relics along the midline 12" from the short board edge.
Each player scores a number of points equal to the number assigned to the Relic(s) in the diagram that player controls at the end of the game. Each Relic functions identically to the Relic in the 6th Edition book mission (p 131). Only one Relic can be held per unit.
Center Relic - 11 pts
Edge Relics - 5 pts

Secondary
Linebreaker (BRB, p 122)
If, at the end of the game, you have at least one model from one or more Scoring or Denial units in the enemy's deployment zone, you score this objective. If both players score this objective, it is a draw. If neither player score this objective, both players lose.
Win 14, Draw 7, Loss 0

Tertiary
Point Differential

Special Rules
Night Fight



Round 4

Deployment
Spearhead (5th Ed rulebook, p 93)

Primary
Players place one objective in the center of the board and roll off to determine who places the first of the remaining objectives. Then players alternate placing the remaining 4 objectives. Objectives cannot be placed within 12" of each other or within 6" of any board edge.
Players win this mission objective by controlling more objectives at the end of the game than their opponent.
Win 21, Draw 10, Loss 0

Secondary
End the game with your Warlord in your opponent's Deployment Zone. If both players score this objective, it is a draw. If neither player score this objective, both players lose.
Win 14, Draw 7, Loss 0

Tertiary
Point Differential

Special Rules
Night Fight


(Scenarios by Ben)

[Benjamin]

I have a few things to add/clarify, now that I've taken a break and am looking at these with fresh eyes.

6th Ed rulebook and GW FAQs/errata for all rules.

Round 1

Primary
Your score is to be totaled for each lateral quarter you control. So if you control No Man's Land #2 and Your Deployment zone, you score 8 points for the round.

I definitely need help tightening up the language and expressing this concept better.

Secondary
"A player wins this mission objective by having more units completely within No Man's Land #1 and #2. The entire base of each model (or simply model, as the case may be) must be in this zone."

Round 2
Secondary
Just emphasis that it's modified KPs, win by 3 or more.

Round 3
Actually read and apply the relic rules.

I'd appreciate if players suggest Special Rules for the scenarios too. I didn't concentrate on those so much, and I always like to add a dash of flavor in.

Clearly, I'm aiming for very dynamic games. Mobility is a thing in these. I want to see armies mixing it up all over the table. There may be people now considering *gasp* transports!

[Bill]

In what format/ to whom would you like feedback?

[Benjamin]

In what format/ to whom would you like feedback?

Not sure. I default to Chase.

That counts as your feedback, thank you for participating.

[Chase]

Email it to me or post it here, whatever is fine.

Any format is good.

[Benjamin]

Got lots of feedback tonight. So far, I might have to rearrange the order of some rounds and tweak a few missions, but the core ideas remain intact for now.

[Banosby]

Comments:

1. Thanks for putting all the work into this Ben. We all appreciate it.

2. I don't see any reason to exclude normal 6th edition rules. That is, I don't see why some missions don't use rules like 'Big Guns Never Tire', I don't see why we wouldn't use the 'The Hammer and Anvil' deployment, and I don't see why missions don't use Mysterious Objectives and so forth. It is the case, of course, that sometimes a rule is either bad generally or bad for tournaments, but the default should be to use the rules out of the book. I haven't played as much 6th as a lot of you, but I've never encountered any problems with any of the rules. I was at MechaniCon a little while back, and they used all the rules I mentioned (except mysterious terrain) without incident. If nothing else, I'd suggest adding in the three bonus objectives from the book (Linebreaker/First Blood/Slay the Warlord) as 1 or 2 point bonus objectives in the missions, as they are intended as (and are at least partially successful as) counter-weights to the benefits of having a highly shooty army, going second, and, well, the third one is probably just there because they like killing HQs.

3. Mission 1 is going to have some very uneven match-ups. This happens in 40k, and you can always tailor you list to the missions, but it'll happen a lot with this mission, a lot of the lists that'll do well in this mission are already the 'good' lists. I'd consider making all normal denial units or all units denial units, or making controlling an issue of VP majority, not of having scoring units in a quarter. Also, whatever you do, consider what you want flyers to count as (flyers generally cannot control objectives if they aren't hovering, as they are too far away from them. But the way you have it written, I think a Valk with some troops in it that's zooming around *could* hold a quarter. Just something to think about.)

4. I'm guessing a lot of people won't, but I kinda like the 3 relic mission (and I'm bringing an army that is decidedly unsuited for it). I could be wrong, but I haven't come up with any match-ups that we're at all likely to see that would make this an unbalanced mission. It slightly favors assault armies and it favors infiltration, but those are both good things to my mind (shooting is generally better, and infiltration is an under-used ability).

5. Generally, good missions. Excited to come play and see you guys again!

[Benjamin]

I lay out my concerns/arguments with Mysterious Objectives in this thread. At some point, Mysterious Objectives could be incorporated into future tournaments. I have no personal grudge against them or anything. I'm erring on the side of caution.


Both players cannot achieve the First Blood secondary objective; therefore, I don't like it. It's really as simple as that. It's more luck of the roll than any strategy. One mission uses Linebreaker as a secondary, and the round 4 mission encourages something like Slay the Warlord.

The Round 1 mission will likely be shuffled around. As expected, it was the topic of the most discussion last night. It also resulted in a complete bloodbath of a game between Daemons and Necrons. I'll consider VP majority instead.

Re: Scoring units in Valks: I thought Scoring units could not be in transports in order to score. In either case, Flyers still provide an upside until GW spreads out more anti-air weapons. Sadly, I can't help that.

Hammer & Anvil is limited by the physical space. No philosophical objection here.

[Grimwulfe]

You are correct unites inside transports do not score they have to be outside the vehicle.

[Banosby]

Ya, I read the thread. I disagree about how troubling they are, but its a judgement call, and while I wouldn't make the one you're making, that doesn't mean I think its the wrong one.

I don't see why First Blood is something you should automatically give up if you go second. And, like I said, part of the point of first blood is to make going second less attractive. Without it, there isn't a lot of downside to going second in objective missions (which most of them are). I'm glad linebreaker/slay the warlord show up a couple of times. Now just put them in more a couple more times:)

Scoring Units in Valks: Unless you word it carefully, 'controlling a quarter' isn't the same thing as 'controlling an objective' so none of the rules that apply to the latter apply to the former. So if you don't want units in a quarter to count towards controlling that quarter unless, for instance, they aren't embarked, you have say that explicitly. But I guess I'll chime in with the nit-picky things after the basic outlines are set in stone. And there is absolutely something you could do to make flyers less effective. You could put in mysterious objectives; they give you a decent shot at giving skyfire to one or more units.

Do people have a hard time reaching across the board? Just institute a 'must have arms this long to play' rule. And make the measurement my arms. Problem solved.

[Banosby]

You are correct unites inside transports do not score they have to be outside the vehicle.

They cannot control objectives. Rulebook doesn't say anything about them not controlling table quarters, because that isn't a mission type the rulebook envisioned.

[keithb]

the implication is that scoring units need to be on the field of play in order to actually be scoring.

[Typhus]

the implication is that scoring units need to be on the field of play in order to actually be scoring.

This.  For ease, you could just use the existing rules for what counts as a scoring or denial unit for determining "controlling X"

[Benjamin]

Ya, I read the thread. I disagree about how troubling they are, but its a judgement call, and while I wouldn't make the one you're making, that doesn't mean I think its the wrong one.

There is one additional point I realized this morning. A mysterious objective has a greater impact on a 4 round tournament than it does on an 8 round tournament. I admit, I haven't seen enough of mysterious objectives to determine their value. That said, I see no reason that they must be included.

I don't see why First Blood is something you should automatically give up if you go second. And, like I said, part of the point of first blood is to make going second less attractive. Without it, there isn't a lot of downside to going second in objective missions (which most of them are).

Realistically, First Blood is a consolation prize, because the objectives are always worth more.

Scoring Units in Valks: Unless you word it carefully...

This is precisely the type of feedback I need. I'll make sure the language is clarified. I think we know what I mean, but I should certainly be more explicit. Never any harm in that.

Do people have a hard time reaching across the board? Just institute a 'must have arms this long to play' rule. And make the measurement my arms. Problem solved.

It's not reaching across the board so much as it is players in the middle tables needing to be on the other side of the board sometimes. At that point, it's not an inconvenience for just one table, but the surrounding ones as well.

[Benjamin]

the implication is that scoring units need to be on the field of play in order to actually be scoring.

This.  For ease, you could just use the existing rules for what counts as a scoring or denial unit for determining "controlling X"

Yeah, pretty much the wording will look similar to that. It's just needs to be spelled out, so that we avoid any confusion during the match.