Feedback on missions?

[Sir_Prometheus]

I'm not really looking to criticize recent missions, but look forward to planning the next set.  For the most recent tournament, mission ideas were floated on the forum, which was great, but just about the time that a bunch of veteran players spoke up with constructive input, they were told, more or less, that the "feedback window was closed", and the missions weren't going to change substantially before the tournament.  I'd like to avoid that as much as possible for next time.  Obviously no mission set will make everybody happy, but i'm sure we can reach a group consensus.

I'll start with a few precepts on how I think things should look, generally.

• Missions should reflect 6th edition as much as possible -- at least until we have run 6th ed enough to be sure, which to be clear, has not happened yet. 
• This means that 1/3 of missions should have BIg Guns never tire incorporated, and 1/3 should have the "the Scouring"
• This means the BRB Secondary Objectives should be incorporated in EVERY mission.  Slay the Warlord, Linebreaker, and First Blood should have a small, essentially "tie-breaker" input in every mission.  That is the purpose they serve, and they are good.
• This means Hammer and Anvil should be one of the deployment types (you can use the modified NOVA setup because of how tables are setup, but I don't think it's required) and the old "spearhead" should not.  (Several things are wrong with spearhead-- it's a cramped setup space, and some points of the two deployment zones are closer than 24".  They were very careful to make sure you cannot get a >24" charge in 6th, and that all deployment types had a 24" dead zone)
• Killpoints should be no more than 1/6 of the total points contribution, except as through The Scouring or Big Guns never Tire
• All point missions need to be "zero sum". If there say, 32 pts to be had in a mission, then between the two players there will be 32 pts.  It should never be possible for both players to both get, say, only 4 pts, or for both to get 20+.  I don't really mind, and in fact like, the little "bonus pts" that are often added onto a mission, but those should never be more than around 10% of the total possible. 
  

[keithb]

Couple of thoughts, as I think mission feedback is important.

I'll start with a few precepts on how I think things should look, generally.

• Missions should reflect 6th edition as much as possible -- at least until we have run 6th ed enough to be sure, which to be clear, has not happened yet. 
• This means that 1/3 of missions should have BIg Guns never tire incorporated, and 1/3 should have the "the Scouring"
• This means the BRB Secondary Objectives should be incorporated in EVERY mission.  Slay the Warlord, Linebreaker, and First Blood should have a small, essentially "tie-breaker" input in every mission.  That is the purpose they serve, and they are good.
• This means Hammer and Anvil should be one of the deployment types (you can use the modified NOVA setup because of how tables are setup, but I don't think it's required) and the old "spearhead" should not.  (Several things are wrong with spearhead-- it's a cramped setup space, and some points of the two deployment zones are closer than 24".  They were very careful to make sure you cannot get a >24" charge in 6th, and that all deployment types had a 24" dead zone)
• Killpoints should be no more than 1/6 of the total points contribution, except as through The Scouring or Big Guns never Tire
• All point missions need to be "zero sum". If there say, 32 pts to be had in a mission, then between the two players there will be 32 pts.  It should never be possible for both players to both get, say, only 4 pts, or for both to get 20+.  I don't really mind, and in fact like, the little "bonus pts" that are often added onto a mission, but those should never be more than around 10% of the total possible. 
  

1)No idea what this even means, unless you mean "should be as much like the 6th ed missions in the BRB as possible".  Which I don't agree with.  Using aspects of these missions is fine though.

2) No reason to mandate any percentage. That is just stupid.  Adding them in from time to time to change things up is a good thing, but to claim any "minimum requirement" is silly.

3) Sure, as long as the impact is minimal.  But I don't think they should be required in order to max out your score.

4) Adding Hammer and anvil is fine, there is nothing wrong with spearhead.  You don't HAVE to set up within 24 of your opponent.

5) See #2.  Overall, reducing its frequency as compared to a standard 5th GT style event is fine, but what's with the percentages Matt?

6) As we have spoken of this before. I agree 100%

The game GW puts out is not intended to be a serious tournament game.  As such, we shouldn't feel beholden to their scenarios as in any way authoritative over what missions should or should not be.  I view them as helpful suggestions.

Lastly as to the missions from the invitational:

Mission 1 was totally fine.
Mission 2, secondary was not a good objective.  This goes to what Matt was saying about zero sum.  There shouldn't be a difference between Drawing the missions(HQs in zone), and drawing(HQs not in zone).  Both times each player managed to complete one half of the mission, yet in one case, he/she is rewarded, the other, penalized in the overall standings.  That is like saying a 17-17 tie in football is a draw, but if it was 0-0 both teams lose.

Mission 3. Again, zero sum.  This mission made it incredibly easy to "play not to lose"  where both players can get a low scoring draw.  It also makes it easier for top tables to stay there, as they can basically fight, but not obstruct each other from going for the more expensive zones.  (IE: I won't contest my deployment zone if you don't contest yours),  Missions shouldn't be written to allow or even present it as an advisable strategy.  Lastly with this one, the secondary made no mention of scoring or denial units, just "units". Should vehicles count for this? Fliers?

[Sir_Prometheus]

The game GW puts out is not intended to be a serious tournament game.

This statement, which Benjamin has also used, is used to basically throw out all the all the changes GW has made for 6th, just do it your own way, which usually means "the way we have always done it", which winds up being a some hodgepodge of 5th, 6th, maybe even a little 4th (when were table quarters last in the actual book?), and generally don't work as well as if we had just used the rules without messing with them.

As much as we make fun of GW, quite justifiably, I think they are probably better at designing missions than you, me, or any of us are, or at least they have spent more time at it.  Worse, some things are meant to counter balance other things:  first blood is meant to counter the advantage of going second for objectives, and when you take it out because frankly, you don't like it or it isn't advantages to your army, your're messing with the balance of things.

I'm not in any way saying that the GW 6th ed missions are flawless...I'm specifically doubting the ability of any of us to do better.  Certainly not without trying it their way first, and extensive playtesting with veteran players.

1. Yes, "should be as much like the 6th ed missions in the BRB as possible", I thought that was clear

2. Yes, I want to mandate a percentage, at least on average.  These are randomly rolled in BRB 1/3 of the time.  Fast Attack and Heavies are meant to be able to score objectives 1/3 of the time each, one of those two are meant to be able to score 2/3 of the time total, only troops 1/3 of the time.  Presumably, it will help fight spam.

3. I wouldn't say "minimal", I'd say "secondary".  They're meant to break what would be other wise ties. 

4. There are at least 4 things wrong with spearhead: Minimum separation is less than 24" (which I'm sure Tyranids love but is not good for newbie players), It eliminates the possibility of tactics such as a "denied flank", It limits greatly the possibly sight lines of a gunline army (should you want to play one), and for a truly Horde army it's jsut crowded -- you have less than 25% (20%?) of the board to deply on, rather than the 33% as in all the 6th ed deployments.  Spearhead is bad and should not be used

5.  Again, percentages are derived from the BRB.  I'm less picky about this than I am about it witht he shrouding and Big Guns never Tire, those really need to 1/3 each.

6.   Yayyyyyy, we Agree!  This zero zum thing might be the most important one to me. 

[Chase]

Thanks for this thread.  I'm VERY interested in this sort of thing.

[Chase]

I suppose this might be relevant info...

I'm planning to do the following in February:

Doubles in Abington.  Likely the 16th.

1750 Singles in Plainville.  Likely the 23rd.

[Junker]

Have you guys given thought to following the Bay Area Open format for tournaments? Its a very easy format to follow.

[Sir_Prometheus]

Both the the Bay Area Format, and the NOVA open format, try to accomplish the same thing:  Set up definitive wins and loses that both parties have a chance to win with a variety of builds and lists, maximizing the chance for skill to come out on top.

NOVA will have 3 different objective, in sequential order, all of which are pretty easy to tie, but it is unlikely to tie all of them at once.  Thus, if a list is weak on kill points, they can try to tie that, and compete on the quarter-taking instead, or whatever.

BAO, as I understand, essentially just runs multiple mission types at the same time, all on separate "tracks", he who wins the most of those wins the game as a whole.

THe thing about these is that they're both really meant for Win/Loss tournaments.  (which by necessity, take more than 3 games and thus multiple days)  They can be modified for 3 game, 1 day tournaments with battle points, and we've often done that at BG, but it's missing out on a lot of the design intent. 

[Benjamin]

For the most recent tournament, mission ideas were floated on the forum, which was great, but just about the time that a bunch of veteran players spoke up with constructive input, they were told, more or less, that the "feedback window was closed", and the missions weren't going to change substantially before the tournament.

The lateral table quarter mission was overhauled and the Relic mission was thrown away entirely, all because of player feedback.

I am interested in the conversation and am listening, but I'll just let this happen. Until there's a tournament prototype, it's talking.

[Tsilber]

  The lateral mission, was actually pretty cool IMHO, at first i was not a fan. But the over haul really did make it much more enjoyable.
   I wont give much feedback other than, the mission in the books are great. However creating your own, posting them months before a tourney and "overhauling" on the communities feedback is first class. I mean if you were not a fan of the missions, you didnt have to play. It's like buying a house next to the airport cause its a good deal. Then complaining about the airplane noise's...

-Todd

[Sir_Prometheus]

For the most recent tournament, mission ideas were floated on the forum, which was great, but just about the time that a bunch of veteran players spoke up with constructive input, they were told, more or less, that the "feedback window was closed", and the missions weren't going to change substantially before the tournament.

The lateral table quarter mission was overhauled and the Relic mission was thrown away entirely, all because of player feedback.

I am interested in the conversation and am listening, but I'll just let this happen. Until there's a tournament prototype, it's talking.

Dang, I liked the relic mission.  And I assumed that when you were putting up the points for the lateral quarters mission, that was to be a determiner for a then zero-sum point total.  Because frankly, I thought we had put to bed he whole zero-sum thing a long time ago.

In any case, again, the point of this is not at all to rehash or debate old missions.  I just want to get started on the next set of missions more ahead of time, so we have more time hash it out.

ANd yes, non-zero sum is bad. 

[BrianP]

Just to chime in too, I really looked forward to the relic mission as well. When I saw that we had 2 "here are 5 objectives!" games instead of the relic I was saddened. It just seemed like something new and exciting, and having 3 on the table was sure to lead to some fun decisions.

Maybe it is because I'm still relatively new to tournament 40k... but I really do not see why it hurts to give the book missions a shot. Tweak them a bit, but honestly, I still have fun when I play book missions...

It should not be hard to pair missions sensibly and put them on a zero-sum scale for primary and secondary and leave the VP calculation as it is for tertiary. I understand wanting to avoid things like mysterious objectives due to the random aspect of it, but nothing in the other BRB mission rules has that same feel (to me). I mean, nightfight is random and we all still use that.

So, I guess I am unsure where all the BRB hate comes from. I do not have my book in front of me, but I can happily make up a bunch of mission combinations based on the BRB for Ben/Chase/whomever to look at and/or seed ideas with... but I would really like to see something other than the expected "here are 5 objectives, good luck!" style of missions. Things like the Big Gun's rules, or having objectives be worth different values add a layer of dynamism which makes the games more interesting, and gives you more flexibility in list building -- both are huge pluses in my book.

[PhoenixFire]

I agree with the zero-sum thing on mission points. In a tournament that is only 3 rounds it's even more important. It DOES leave a larger potential for ties at the end of 3 rounds which brings up the whole composition points argument however.

I would also like to see short edge deployment in a mission. I understand the logistical problems with the way the tables are set up but i still think we should give it a try and see what happens.

Really wasn't a fan of the Tertiary objective in all 3 missions, doesn't really seem balanced to me with elite armies being easier to get a "wipeout" on and horde armies being nearly impossible wipe out. Not to mention it requires the math... which is hard lol

[Sir_Prometheus]

The one thing I'm hearing agreement about is zero-sum.  Can we all agree that all missions shall be zero sum henceforth, and never have to worry about it again?  (aside from a small amount of "bonus" points) Because again, I thought we had settled that some time ago.

@PhoenixFire: Speaking of which, if you're about worried ties, I think the appropriate answer for that is Bonus Points, and the great way to make those 6h edition is to use the Secondary Objectives from the book.  (first blood, slay the warlord, linebreaker) Lots of tournaments do this already.

So I propose we set these two rules down in stone, and then move on to more controversial subjects:

1)  Primary and Secondary points will always be zero sum, all the time, no exceptions, not Ever.

2) There shall be, for every mission, a small amount (like, no more than 5 or 6 pts in 30 or 40 something pt mission) of "Bonus Points" that are based upon the 3 standard secondary objectives: First Blood, SLay the warlord, and Linebreaker. 

[keithb]

I like the overall format matt, but there is no reason to limit secondary "bonus points" to only the 3 examples we have.  I think they are fine to include, but shouldn't be exhaustive.

[Sir_Prometheus]

I guess I'm open for additional bonus pts for funsies, but I'd like the BRB Secondary Objectives to be dominant in the "tie-breaker" section, in the spirit of keeping it 6th edition.

At least for the first few runs.  My vision is to do as-close-as-reasonable to 6th edition, and then once we feel we have a grip on that, dial it back from there.  Rather than the reverse, because I think the whole problem is hesitancy to adopt 6th edition fully leads people to use some elements of 6th without their inbuilt counter-balancing elements.