Templecon Missions

[Sir_Prometheus]

I think SOMETHING should have killpoints primary.  1) it's in the main book, 2) it's a balancer against MSU. 

[keithb]

I think SOMETHING should have killpoints primary.  1) it's in the main book, 2) it's a balancer against MSU.

Two missions use kill points.

[keithb]

I don't really think it works that way, but I'll certainly play the mission and try it out. Just offering a suggestion to make that one less harsh for slower armies with squishier troops.

I appreciate all feedback.  But it sounds like you are asking for a mission to help armies with slow, weak troops.   I am afraid that armies like that are just bad. 

[robpro]

I don't really think it works that way, but I'll certainly play the mission and try it out. Just offering a suggestion to make that one less harsh for slower armies with squishier troops.

I appreciate all feedback.  But it sounds like you are asking for a mission to help armies with slow, weak troops.   I am afraid that armies like that are just bad.

I don't believe codexes are designed around being able to hold the same objective the whole game. That would favor immobile gunline armies that can blow you off yours while castling up on their own. This mission is unlike any book mission and I think it's a good idea to keep that in mind.

Someone could score points for 1 or 2 turns and contest or leaf-blower objectives for the rest and that's pretty much the game (and not every army is able to do this), which I think is a little silly. When I played this mission at Templecon in 2013 my game was over on turn 2 because I had no way to catch up on the victory points, and I feel like it's poor mission design when that can be the case.

[Sir_Prometheus]

Being able to hold the same objective all game favors marines, orks, blob squads and the like.  It disfavors Tau, eldar.  Not a criticism, just a comment. 

[keithb]

I don't really think it works that way, but I'll certainly play the mission and try it out. Just offering a suggestion to make that one less harsh for slower armies with squishier troops.

I appreciate all feedback.  But it sounds like you are asking for a mission to help armies with slow, weak troops.   I am afraid that armies like that are just bad.

I don't believe codexes are designed around being able to hold the same objective the whole game. That would favor immobile gunline armies that can blow you off yours while castling up on their own. This mission is unlike any book mission and I think it's a good idea to keep that in mind.

Someone could score points for 1 or 2 turns and contest or leaf-blower objectives for the rest and that's pretty much the game (and not every army is able to do this), which I think is a little silly. When I played this mission at Templecon in 2013 my game was over on turn 2 because I had no way to catch up on the victory points, and I feel like it's poor mission design when that can be the case.

That mission has generally gotten me the most positive comments both in 2012 and 2013.  If you notice, this year I changed it and gave you an option on how to better keep up this year.  Besides, it doesn't say anywhere that you need to keep the same unit on the same objective.... there are many cases where you wouldn't want to do that.

Also, please explain to me how a gunline blowing all your units away is somehow worse in that mission than any other?

Your comment also implies that GW designs codexs and book missions with each other in mind, which I find highly dubious.

Also, this is only one mission.  Most lists are not good at all missions. 
What list were you running last year?

EDIT:   I will definitely consider fast attack/heavy support scoring in this mission.

[Chase]

All missions are on a 20/0 sliding scale.  Each VP that you win by increases your score by one, and decreases your opponent's score by one.  Equal VPs results in a 10-10 draw.

Does this mean that each player starts each game with a "score"of 10, and it's then modified by the number of VPs he scores minus the number of VPs his opponent scores?

For example:
In missions 1 if I score:  1 Objective (4 points) + Relic (5 points) + Line Breaker (1 point)  [10 points total]
And my opponent scores:  First Blood (1 Point)

That our scores will be:  Chase = 10 (starting) + 4 (objective) + 5 (relic) + 1 (line breaker) - 1 (oppoenets first blood) = 19

Opponent = 10 (starting) + 1 (first blood) - 10 (Chase's points) = 1


Caps at 20 and 0?

[keithb]

Good question chase.

For each player, start at 10, and take your VPs, subtract your opponents VPs, and add to 10.

so in your example, 10VPs - 1VP = 9 +10 = 19BP,  your opponent has 1VP-10VP = -9 VP + 10 = 1BP.

So you would win 19-1.

[Chase]

Cool, I like that.  Seems easy enough.  Weights big wins and small wins.  Shouldn't really be any ties after 5 rounds.

[andalucien]

I think I can actually go to Templecon this year.  So excited.

[andalucien]

Sooo Keith... the question I'm sure you are looking forward to... what's gonna be legal for Templecon this year? 

[Chase]

Sooo Keith... the question I'm sure you are looking forward to... what's gonna be legal for Templecon this year?

He's probably working on it.  I emailed him earlier this week with a similar question and he hasn't got back to me, which is not ordinary.

[Grimwulfe]

I can asure you it is being discussed in detail

[Mannahnin]

I like the missions, but can I ask a quick question about the general rules?  Why no Mysterious Objectives?  I've generally found that they add a positive dimension to the game, particularly in that two of them help non-flyer-having-armies deal with flyers.  Not that flyers are the scariest thing nowadays, but I'm really curious about this particular restriction.

[Sir_Prometheus]

I will second that I generally like mysterious objectives, too.  (but not mysterious terrain, those are just awful)