Feedback on missions?

[andalucien]

I don't know if I get a vote since I cancelled going to the invitational at the last minute (sry again Chase).    But here's my 2 cents anyway:

I enjoy occasional departures from the book missions.  The book missions aren't particularly exciting to me.  I'm not sure GW put as much thought into these missions as some people think.   First Blood especially has just never seemed like an example of good mission design to me.  My personal (unprovable) suspicion is that someone at GW produced the entire "standard mission set" from the BRB in about a week, and that there was very little effort or playtesting put into it - other priorities took precedence.   Not that these missions are broken, they're just meh, and I would hate for all 40k TO's to be always thinking about how to extract & adapt the "spirit" of these missions...  I'm not sure that the spirit is even there to be found.   

Let's get back to basics.  We love the 40k universe, we love to tinker on our armies, and we like to pit them against each other in well-understood, fun, and fair scenarios.    I think a little creativity can go a long way towards this...

For example, at Templecon last year, there was one mission which I really loved, and which everyone else seemed to enjoy as well.  It had nothing to do with any rulebook mission.   

The idea was that each objective had to be "camped" throughout the game.  By holding an objective at the end of your opponent's turn, you would accumulate 1 "objective point".  The winner was determined by total accumulated points.    This made for a great game, one free from some of the more nonsensical / non-cinematic thoughts that typically plague 40k games - "Hmm if I swoop in now on turn 5 I can be claiming this objective as long as the game ends..." 

 

[andalucien]

For example, there's one book mission where Fast Attack units count as scoring, and one where Heavy Support counts as scoring.  There's no mission where Elites count as scoring.  Do you think that GW arranged it this way because they felt that Elites are overpowered, and they wanted to make sure to give HS + FA units a relative boost?    I doubt it.  I just think the decision went more like "ok - we've got 6 missions now - great.  ship it."

[Sir_Prometheus]

First Blood especially has just never seemed like an example of good mission design to me.  My personal (unprovable) suspicion is that someone at GW produced the entire "standard mission set" from the BRB in about a week, and that there was very little effort or playtesting put into it - other priorities took precedence.   

I specifically think that's untrue, and it's exactly that sort of impression I'm trying to fight against.  First Blood is actually a huge part of my point...I think it balances what otherwise greatly gives the advantage to he who goes second.  It also nerfs razor spam and a few other things.

I'll agree that there's not a lot of "spirit" to the missions (Relic aside, which is why I was very sad to see it dropped from the most recent tournament), but spirit unfortunately ver often comes at expense of balance.  If I had to choose, I'd choose balance.

For what's it's worth, I also really liked the "build points over time" mission from templecon, which I beleive was taken from Warmachine, and that's a good thing. 

IN any case, I'd prefer to see us start from a solid 6th ed foundation, and then as time goes back in add some "flavor" in for taste.

For example, there's one book mission where Fast Attack units count as scoring, and one where Heavy Support counts as scoring.  There's no mission where Elites count as scoring.  Do you think that GW arranged it this way because they felt that Elites are overpowered, and they wanted to make sure to give HS + FA units a relative boost?    I doubt it.  I just think the decision went more like "ok - we've got 6 missions now - great.  ship it."

I certainly do think that, yes.  Almost all codexes have their most powerful units in the Elites section.  A few codexes have a really good heavy section, but certainly not all of them, and few really prize their fast attack.

That's where I'm going with all of this-- GW is a better designer than you think they are, and the BRB missions are good--and that even if that's not true we have no data because we never run anything like a 6th ed mission in tournaments because there's so much instinctive resistance to it.  Most of which, btw, I think is frankly a resistance to change, not to the actual meat of the missions. 

[andalucien]

I guess this is going off on a bit of a tangent, but here are some examples of codexes where the Fast Attack and Heavy Support choices are by far stronger than Elites:

Chaos Space Marines
Necrons
Grey Knights
Sisters of Battle
Imperial Guard
Dark Eldar

For all of these armies, you frequently see FA/HS maxed out, and you see them using maybe 1 elite slot if that.   Ironically, you see a lot more units that are listed in the Elite section, but only when they actually count as troops due to a special character!

[Sir_Prometheus]

I agree with you on CSM and necrons, yes.  As a very active GK player, I can say without question that the fast attack selections are the worst in the codex (though basically all GK units are at least useable). 

I don't think there's anything particularly special about DE fast attack:  Reavers are certainly good, but not broken, and Beast packs aren't really Broken on their own...they're broken because of the insane combo you can make with them.

SoB Dominions are good but I think it's hard to argue they're the best things in the codex. 

IG sure, Vendettas are undercosted by about 50 pts, but fundamentally that codex is about troops, and not elites.

Still though, most of the really hard-hitting units in 40k are Elites.  Paladins, purifiers, harlequins, terminators of all stripes, True-born, sternguard, Crisis suits, Chosen, fire dragons, wolf guard, Hive guard, Nobz, heck, even demon flamers.  All the Cult troops of CSM are natively Elites. 

Letting Elties score would be a mistake that letting FA and Heavy score is not.  And, to boot, many of those units have ways to make them troops through special characters or other special HQs already. 

To bring it back off tangent: yes, I think it was thoughtful decision, and I see the reasons behind it. 

[Chase]

I am going to start working on scenarios for the 1750 event in Feb sometime later this week or early next week.

Also, if you plan to play in the 500 point event and haven't emailed me, please do so.

[Sir_Prometheus]

Anyone else have input?  "Principles" they believe should be part of mission design?  It's been a few days.

[Grimwulfe]

I believe that custom missions are always the best so I kind of disagree with every point you made.  But hey thats just my opinion I believe that we as the players of this great game have the knowledge the know how and awareness to create great, balanced and fun missions without having to reply on what is in the BRB.

[Benjamin]

• Missions should reflect 6th edition as much as possible...

I do not see why this must be true.

[Sir_Prometheus]

• Missions should reflect 6th edition as much as possible...

I do not see why this must be true.

I know.   

I believe that custom missions are always the best so I kind of disagree with every point you made.  But hey thats just my opinion I believe that we as the players of this great game have the knowledge the know how and awareness to create great, balanced and fun missions without having to reply on what is in the BRB.

Troy, It's fine that you disagree with me, but then the question is:  What do you think makes a good mission?

[Chase]

Does anyone have a "6th edition'esque" idea that might be a decent secondary objective (a la adepticon, not the BRB)?

I need one good idea...

[Chase]

So here's where I'm at for the next Singles event (which I may change from 1750) which will likely be on 2/23:


Scenario 1:

21/10/0: 5 Objectives (Crusade)
14/7/0: Kill Points (Purge the Alien)
0-8: Point Differential
Bonus: 1, 2, or 3 points: Slay, 1st Blood, Linebreaker


Scenario 2:

21/10/0: Big Guns OR The Scouring (I likely won't announce which) as per the book.
14/7/0: ??  I need a "6th edition" idea that isn't the same as something I've already used or adds another few objective markers to the table
0-8: Point Differential
Bonus: 1, 2, or 3 points: Slay, 1st Blood, Linebreaker


Scenario 3: (I really like this one)

21/10/0: 2 objectives, 1 in each player's table half (Emp's Will)
14/7/0:  1, 2, or 3 Relics along the midline (haven't decided)
0-8: Point Differential
Bonus: 1, 2, or 3 points: Slay, 1st Blood, Linebreaker


I feel like it doesn't really get more "6th edition" than that.  Personally, I feel like it's a pretty boring event outside of maybe the last one, which may be imbalanced.  It's incredibly important that the event produces as close to one winner in 3 rounds as possible.  I think that's a fact VERY, VERY few people consider when they're looking at the scenarios we use and why we've included what we have, where we have.

I took a lot of flak last time for assigning 1, 2, or 3 points to Slay the Warlord, First Blood, and Linebreaker at the first event we ran under 6th edition so I'm reluctant to do it again.  People seem to be asking for it though and I don't really see another way handle it.  Maybe 0.5, 1, and 1.5 points instead?

Thoughts?

[Benjamin]

The problem was that the secondary objectives varied in points from game to game.

If every round looked like this,

Linebreaker 3
Slay the Warlord 2
First Blood 1

or

Slay the Warlord 3
Linebreaker 2
First Blood 1

I think it's looking fine.

Working on that second round mission objective, but I don't think it's at the bottom of this bottle of wine. However, there's only one way to be sure...

[Benjamin]

I would strongly recommend for any use of the Relic an additional rule stating the Relic cannot be moved until Game Turn 2. Players have found ways to cheese the mission that GW never thought of, because GW doesn't play competitive.

[Chase]

The problem was that the secondary objectives varied in points from game to game.

I figured this was better than not.  If this is the route we go, I can promise it'll be:

1 point: First Blood
2 points: Slay
3 points: Linebreaker