Battleground 40k Invitational Scenarios - BETA

[Sir_Prometheus]

Both players cannot achieve the First Blood secondary objective;

That's literally the point. 

therefore, I don't like it. It's really as simple as that. It's more luck of the roll than any strategy

Not even vaguely true. 

For one thing, it's meant to counteract the advantages of going second.  Many players think going first is always better, but experienced players know that's often untrue.  Going second is particularly better with objectives, and 6th is supposed to be 5/6 objective based, so there's that.

Also, it purposefully penalizes MSU and rhino builds.  You'll find the guy who gets first blood is usually the guy who's opponent took more rhinos. 

All secondary's should be active in all missions, I firmly believe that. 

[Moosifer]

So you believe First blood to be worth the 14 points for a secondary objective?

Ben solid Missions, got to play some on saturday hope to try some out this week as well.  For us folks that hate math and love pictures, could you mark the deployment zones with distances.  The book likes to skip this for the vanguard as well and my brain hurt before we even played...

[Benjamin]

There will definitely be better pictures for deployments and objective placements. I wasn't expecting that rough draft to get posted.

[Chase]

I love concept art.  Had to pass that shit on.

The diagrams in the packet will be sweet, I promise Derek will do a good job with them.

[Banosby]

So you believe First blood to be worth the 14 points for a secondary objective?

I doubt it. I imagine he thinks that the three 'secondary' objectives in the main rulebook should be worth some number of points in all the missions and that they should play the traditional 'battle point modifier' role.

[Chase]

I did something similar to that for one of the first 6th ed events we had.

We did 3 scenarios, each of them was scored in every scenario.  They were worth 1, 2, or 3 points once each over the course of the tournament.  I had TONS of complaints about it.

It's funny...  Some people ask for more of a 6th edition feel and others complain about it.

I suppose 3 points for "kill a unit first" might be a little much though.  Some people seem to think it's super easy to do, others think it's not too tough to prevent.  /shrug


I plan to try mysterious objectives in the future.

[Banosby]

Chase (and Ben), you should know we all got together a while ago and made a pact to bitch about everything you do. We made a rota to determine who's on which side of any given issue to mix things up a bit. But if you ever get tired of it and say 'fine, do it your damn selves then', all you'll hear is 'what, no, you did a great job!'

[Chase]

I suppose that's true.

[Mannahnin]

It's true!  They even got us guys in NH in on it. 

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

Realistically, all of the rulebook secondary objectives are mostly there to break ties on objectives in a straight win/loss game, as opposed to a battle point situation.  As these missions have three levels of mission goals, with varying points, that function is not really needed.  That said, I concur with Banosby that all three secondary objectives are part of every core rulebook mission in this edition, and as such folks should be accustomed to playing for them in any normal game.  It does feel a little funny now to play a game without them, six months into 6th ed.

The missions overall look good. Definitely premiums being placed on mobility and lots of scoring.  I like that the missions appear to have tried to use the concept of having two contrasting goals for the primary and secondary, which I think is generally a good design principle. 

You definitely want to be clear and explicit about table quarters, especially since that hasn’t been a core book mission in two editions now, and you can’t assume folks know what it means or how it’s handled.

[Benjamin]

That said, I concur with Banosby that all three secondary objectives are part of every core rulebook mission in this edition, and as such folks should be accustomed to playing for them in any normal game.  It does feel a little funny now to play a game without them, six months into 6th ed.

The problem is that 6th is decidedly not competitive, but tournaments inherently are. We're trying to shoehorn the game into something it's not. That said, the task is possible, but the end product must look different than the book would suggest.

After the Invitational, I definitely want to open the discussion wider regarding what players want and expect from tournaments. For six months, we've been flying by the seat of our pants, trying to make the best educated guesses out of what will work and what won't.

[Loranus]

With Mysterious Objectives something you might want to try and people can toss it around. Using it on a mission where each player places 3 objectives so 6 objectives in total. Each player rolls for 3 Mysterious Objectives and assigns them to the objectives he places down and then they get revealed at the beginning  of the match. Add in a little strategy into how those are placed and where they come up.

[Mannahnin]

That said, I concur with Banosby that all three secondary objectives are part of every core rulebook mission in this edition, and as such folks should be accustomed to playing for them in any normal game.  It does feel a little funny now to play a game without them, six months into 6th ed.

The problem is that 6th is decidedly not competitive, but tournaments inherently are. We're trying to shoehorn the game into something it's not.

I don't think that I can agree.  There's certainly more randomness, and I tend to think it's less of a tournament game than 5th was, but it's still a competitive game.  As much as 4th and 3rd were, certainly, and those had thriving competitive scenes.

After the Invitational, I definitely want to open the discussion wider regarding what players want and expect from tournaments. For six months, we've been flying by the seat of our pants, trying to make the best educated guesses out of what will work and what won't.

Sounds good!  Overall I think you guys run great events, and there's always a bit of an extended transition period for edition changes in 40k, because of the work and cost involved in adapting armies or starting new ones, and only a minority of players have the resources and level of passion to adapt quickly.  It took me what's probably around 50 games now to start to feel comfortable and like I'm getting a handle on this edition, because the changes were bigger in this edition shift than any change since 2nd to 3rd. 

[Sir_Prometheus]

So you believe First blood to be worth the 14 points for a secondary objective?

I doubt it. I imagine he thinks that the three 'secondary' objectives in the main rulebook should be worth some number of points in all the missions and that they should play the traditional 'battle point modifier' role.

This.  Yeah, all 3 secondaries, all missions, splitting whatever the secondary pool winds up being (personally I'd go for 12 total, 4 pts each, but whatever).

[Sir_Prometheus]

That said, I concur with Banosby that all three secondary objectives are part of every core rulebook mission in this edition, and as such folks should be accustomed to playing for them in any normal game.  It does feel a little funny now to play a game without them, six months into 6th ed.

The problem is that 6th is decidedly not competitive, but tournaments inherently are. We're trying to shoehorn the game into something it's not. That said, the task is possible, but the end product must look different than the book would suggest.

After the Invitational, I definitely want to open the discussion wider regarding what players want and expect from tournaments. For six months, we've been flying by the seat of our pants, trying to make the best educated guesses out of what will work and what won't.

Well, that's part of the problem, we have different assumptions.  I think 6th edition, as written, is actually surprisingly competitive.  For 1 thing, the missions really are pretty hard to tie on (yes, because of things like First Blood) and I think it's great.

[Benjamin]

Oh, my position is not based on an assumption.

Page 8, The Spirit of the Game.

The only way you could be more laid-back is not to write the rulebook at all.