Feedback on missions?

[Bill]

I am still not sold on VP differential for 6th Ed. I think it gives fliers more undue power against armies without fliers. It worked well in 5th ad forced aggressive armies but its a little different now.

[Benjamin]

That's true, as GW is sure taking their sweet time rolling Skyfire across the game.

But Flyers do have drawbacks, such as being neither a Scoring nor Denial unit. So if one takes Flyers to somehow exploiting the tertiary VP differential, isn't that penny wise and pound foolish?

The VP differential is valuable, because it provides a variation of scores across all games. Even with Adepticon style scoring, we know 3 rounds is just not enough to separate the field at the top. This is even more true with the awesome quality of players we have who can score max points in their sleep.

[Chase]

The VP differential is valuable, because it provides a variation of scores across all games. Even with Adepticon style scoring, we know 3 rounds is just not enough to separate the field at the top. This is even more true with the awesome quality of players we have who can score max points in their sleep.

Bingo.

The Point Differential seems to be the best way to make sure there's SOME variation in scoring... at least in rounds 2 and 3.  Every time I think a mission objective is really hard to win or a bonus point really hard to earn, you guys prove me very wrong.

I'd love to have ~5 different bonus points each mission, but that's not "6th edition" and therefore won't make it into this event.

I do need to work on the Doubles for Abington and get their event posted VERY soon.  Maybe I can have some fun with that.

[Benjamin]

Maybe I can have some fun with that.

Take your fun seriously, bro.

[Tsilber]

Lot a talk about special characters being broken, or mission like big guns, and fast attack not being fair. If you. If you change the missions to make it balanced, try a tourney, no special characters?

*shrug

[Sir_Prometheus]

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.

I would agree with that rule.  I also think it is important that there be an odd number of relics, either 1 or 3.  I really liked that Relic mission you made, Ben, I think that was good, just make it zero sum.

The VP differential is valuable, because it provides a variation of scores across all games. Even with Adepticon style scoring, we know 3 rounds is just not enough to separate the field at the top. This is even more true with the awesome quality of players we have who can score max points in their sleep.

Bingo.

The Point Differential seems to be the best way to make sure there's SOME variation in scoring... at least in rounds 2 and 3.  Every time I think a mission objective is really hard to win or a bonus point really hard to earn, you guys prove me very wrong.

I'd love to have ~5 different bonus points each mission, but that's not "6th edition" and therefore won't make it into this event.

I do need to work on the Doubles for Abington and get their event posted VERY soon.  Maybe I can have some fun with that.

So here's an important thing:  I think we should change how we count victory points.  Sam told us last tournament that it was "victory points on the table" and that fortifications do not count.  THe argument against fortifications counting is that they can be used by either side.....ok, but it also penalizes people who took fortifications, since it is then only possible for them to have X pts less on the board at the end of the turn.  Since Fortifications are still a primary answer to flyers, I don't think that's a good thing. 

A simple answer is to count victory points killed rather than remaining...I also think this is more balanced in the case of units that spawn things.   

[andalucien]

So here's an important thing:  I think we should change how we count victory points.  Sam told us last tournament that it was "victory points on the table" and that fortifications do not count.  THe argument against fortifications counting is that they can be used by either side.....ok, but it also penalizes people who took fortifications, since it is then only possible for them to have X pts less on the board at the end of the turn.  Since Fortifications are still a primary answer to flyers, I don't think that's a good thing. 

A simple answer is to count victory points killed rather than remaining...I also think this is more balanced in the case of units that spawn things.

Of course, then you could say that it gives an additional ADVANTAGE to fortifications, since you are investing 100 victory points into e.g. an Aegis line which you know can never be killed and can therefore never give your opponent VP credit.   I guess that's less severe than putting yourself down 100 points automatically before the game starts though.

[Sir_Prometheus]

The aegis line can't be killed, but the gun can, and costs points.  The aegis itself is only 50 pts, so I don't see this as such a big deal.  Bastions of course, can be killed. 

[Chase]

The fortification thing is imperfect and does require discussion.

Currently, I think that allowing them to be "wasted" points is a better option than not.

If this ends up being the largest point of criticism, I'm cool with that.


I'm much more interested in what people have to say about the non-tertiary objectives as those are the least likely to change.

[Sir_Prometheus]

Currently, I think that allowing them to be "wasted" points is a better option than not.

   Besides that, it affects spawned units, principally from a tervigon, but also "grown" units such as scarabs.  I would rather these units not be worth "free" victory points, particularly at the same time fortifications are penalized.  (waiting for Keith to pipe up.......)

Counting killed rather than "still alive" takes care of both problems nicely......and I also think that was how VPs (sorry, my 4th! ed book is at home) was supposed to work originally....I think Sam saying it's on the table points was just a mistake.

I'm much more interested in what people have to say about the non-tertiary objectives as those are the least likely to change.

I don't think you should just have just Big Guns Never Tire OR The Scouring (they need less unwieldy names), I think you need both.  However, I see nothing wrong with one of them being a secondary.  They could even be primary and secondary on the same mission, or different missions, which I think takes care of you worry about finding something to do for Mission #2 secondary.

I would also like to see The Relic be a primary, if possible.  Ben's amendment of only being able to pick it up turn 2, is fine, though I think he's mistaken in think that the units that can do that are a "loophole", tons and tons and tons of units are capable of grabbing the Relic first turn, including any unit with a rhino.

Actually, no, I'm not so sure we should make that change. 

[Grand Master Steve]

Lot a talk about special characters being broken, or mission like big guns, and fast attack not being fair. If you. If you change the missions to make it balanced, try a tourney, no special characters?

*shrug

I disagree. Certain special charecters unlock unit options to format specific armies. Generic forms of those charecters dont do that thus ham stringing the player in their choice of units. Belial needs to be taken to make Deathwing Termies troops. Samial needs to be taken to make Ravenwing Bikes troops. With out those options a player can not play a Deathwing or Ravenwing list. If they made it so a generic chapter master in termie armor or a bike would unlock that option it would be a different story.

[Sir_Prometheus]

Yeah, it's pretty clear that GW started using special characters as unlocks (quite a few years ago, now) as a way to say "F___  Y___" to all the tournaments out there either saying "no special characters" or severely penalizing SCs with comp.  Or maybe it's just that they have fancy finecast models for most of those SCs and they want to push the models.

Either way, entire armies revolve around Special Characters, now....so no, you can't ban them. 

[Grimwulfe]

Real men play with Home Brew!

[keithb]

You can totally ban special characters.  Certain Builds focus around special characters.

I mean, you are allowed to play the current/old DA without going for Deathwing.

IG lists work fine without Marbo.

However, I think most SCs for 40k are not terribly unbalancing and are fine for tournament play.

To think that GW made any choice for any reason other than "Makes more money" is wrong.  Think about it.  I can sell you a character on top of the other characters you have, (and it will be more expensive), and I can sell you a bunch of other model that may/may not be a legal build when the next book comes out!  Genius!


As to VPs.  I have always played as what is killed, not what is left. Though for most armies there is no difference.  A rule for fortifications, you could always rule that as long as they are still manned by the owning player they are not dead, but if "controlled" by the non-owning player, they are "dead"

[Sir_Prometheus]

As to VPs.  I have always played as what is killed, not what is left. Though for most armies there is no difference.  A rule for fortifications, you could always rule that as long as they are still manned by the owning player they are not dead, but if "controlled" by the non-owning player, they are "dead"

I like that rule.  ANd yeah, I think Sam just ruled off the cuff that it's VPs on the table, not killed, without realizing that it made a (relatively, to that tertiary objective) large difference for certain armies.