Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I remember the old Epic Nids. To spore mind, you flipped a template a foot or so above the table...where they hit...is where it hit. Fun stuff.

bhsman wrote:Are you serious? Not only are you making ungrounded assumptions left and right about what the other TWENTY-FIVE-PLUS missions entail,

I'm basing my opinions on the information at hand, namely a first hand source, that being Grotsnik, and what he has told me. And it's not about assuming the other 25 missions incorporate KP's, it's the fact I'm disappointed that even a single one incorporates KP's.

bhsman wrote:but you're also expecting GW not to incorporate a scoring system that is prevalent in 1/3rd of the regular rulebook's missions

That's a rather disingenuous statement to make given that there are only 3 missions in the 40K rulebook, so the 1/3rd isn't quite so large as you'd purport it to be. And as I said, it is my preference that this book be about actual missions with actual missions objectives that aren't abstracted points grabs.

And it's not 'whining', so ... [edited by Mod]

Let me preface this by saying that I'm honestly really excited about Battle Missions, and I can't wait to try out the Clash of the Champions rules with my friends. That said,

H.B.M.C. wrote:I'm basing my opinions on the information at hand, namely a first hand source, that being Grotsnik, and what he has told me. And it's not about assuming the other 25 missions incorporate KP's, it's the fact I'm disappointed that even a single one incorporates KP's.

Yea except

H.B.M.C. wrote:I was really hoping that this Battle Missions book would have a selection of strong themed objective based missions that would be all about specific objectives, not scoring points

You're already assuming that there won't be a strong selection of objective missions based on only handful of missions we've heard about, and even that's assuming we know everything there is to know about them.

H.B.M.C. wrote:That's a rather disingenuous statement to make given that there are only 3 missions in the 40K rulebook, so the 1/3rd isn't quite so large as you'd purport it to be. And as I said, it is my preference that this book be about actual missions with actual missions objectives that aren't abstracted points grabs.

So 1 in 3 games of Warhammer total use Kill Points to determine the winner. Would you say that if 1 in 3 Americans watched the last Super Bowl, you would say it wasn't that well-viewed because it was only one-third of all Americans, otherwise known as one hundred million people? This also goes without adding in all the quick meat grinder friends play (that is, to opt directly for a KP mission right away) as to make things simpler?

Or, to make it simpler, since it's all just for fun they replace all instances of Kill Points with Victory Poi-...hmm.

Your hang up on using Kill Points should not even be a point of discussion when we're talking about a set of rules for games that are mostly for fun, not for tournaments or competitive gaming.

Gents, I suggest we tone down the... fervor of our dicussion, lest the mods feel it necessary to intervene.

Okey-doke: Which mission is everyone looking forward to?

Clash is looking to make for very thematic battles (which is why I'd like to try it), and provides a way for your special named HQs to not be killed off early in a campaign or set up a climatic final clash.

I'm looking forward to the kill-team one. I started in 5th, so never got to experience it. Although, since I play SM, I'm really excited to try my hand at their missions.

Ah, I'd honestly forgotten about Kill-Team. I can see it now...

-Start with a Battlefleet Gothic game (to determine minor advantages for later games) that takes place over the planet or planets that act as the stage for an upcoming campaign

-Use Combat Patrol/Kill Team to represent boarding actions

-Aeronautical Imperialis for any dogfights that take place

-Planetstrike for the immediate post-BFG game

-Cities of Death for urban combat

-Battle Missions for everything else (Send Kill Teams to go after trade routes, generators, etc.; various missions allowed depending on the position of either winner, loser, etc.)

And all followed under Planetary Empires.

...man that is never going to work out.

Rumour is, some of the Kill Point missions have a bit of a twist.

Defender:

HQ = 3 KP is assassination mission
Troop = 1 KP
Everything else = 2 KP

Attacker

Everything is 2 KP.

What I like the most, based on what I heard, is that unlike Cities of Death/Planet Stike/Apoc, you don't need specific terrain for Battle Missions, and you can easily incorporate them into pick up games.

bhsman wrote:

...man that is never going to work out.

If it means anything, I'd love to play in a campaign like that!

Commander Endova wrote:If it means anything, I'd love to play in a campaign like that!

I appreciate it, but the logistics involved would would be nothing short of hilarious. I'm envisioning gigantic fleet battles, random 2d10 rolls to determine where the shattered remains of an Ork Hulk would land to determine their starting point on the PE map, Necromunda homebrewed rules for a Space Marine veteran Kill Team and a brood of Genestealers (with a Broodlord to match), Apocalypse battles of such scale that Forgeworld would smack its lips in anticipation, and don't even get me started on Combat Patro-...


...what was I talking about again?

Anyways, for those of you (H.B.M.C. included) who are hung up on the use of Kill Points, then just view posts as such:

Zoned wrote:Rumour is, some of the Kill Point missions have a bit of a twist.

Defender:

HQ = 3x VP if assassination mission
Troop = VP as normal
Everything else = 2x VP

Attacker

Everything is 2x VP.

edit:

byteboy wrote:That Magic card was called Orb of Chaos, I still have 4 of those, fun stuff. The random shells idea really helped me out trying to figure out a way to do Meteor Showers on a planet, just with bigger templates. After it impacts, I can place down a crater or a huge home made asteriod.

Awesome idea. I cannot wait to see more.

The true power of Orb of Chaos came when you were prepared to tear it to bits.

Honestly I'm also excited to homebrew little 'adjustments' to these missions, specifically something like the meteor shower one you mention. Give both players 2-3 tokens, and have them roll for scatter and 2d6.

That Magic card was called Orb of Chaos, I still have 4 of those, fun stuff. The random shells idea really helped me out trying to figure out a way to do Meteor Showers on a planet, just with bigger templates. After it impacts, I can place down a crater or a huge home made asteriod.

Awesome idea. I cannot wait to see more.

I'll chime in by saying that I cant wait! My soul drinkers should be just about ready to crack some heads in battle missions for it's release.

I think this book sounds like alot of fun and will make for some cool scenario-based campaigns

On a side note, the artwork on the cover is gorgeous.

I'm excited for this book! Can't wait to see the race specific missions.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Quite a few. The 'Duel' one looks quite good fun. Standard game, but both sides have to pick a named character. Only the named character can kill his counterpart, anything else reduces them to a single wound and they keep plugging away. D6 Kill Points for topping a named character, 1 for everything else.

I'm not sure any IG player would find that one to be "fun". Let's see, the opponent gets an unkillable character, say Kharne, and my IG character is the only model that can kill him. Yeah, like that's gonna happen. Wait, unless my named character is Pask in a big-ass tank!

This is from the other thread, but I'll post it here as well.

Fresh from the Taco-Making Machine at BoLS:

Chaos Marines

1. Pillage
2. Black Crusade
3. Scorched Earth

Chaos Daemons

1. Night Fight
2. Invasion
3. Fight to the Death

Dark Eldar
1. Dawn Raid
2. Slave Raid
3. Feigned Retreat

Eldar
1. Pre-emptive Strike
2. Flank Attack
3. Mobile Defence

Imperial Guard
1. Prepared Assault
2. War of Attrition
3. Trench Warfare

Necrons
1. Ambush
2. Reconnaissance in Force
3. Implacable Advance

Orks
1. Blitzkrieg
2. Waaagh!
3. Cut & Run

Space Marines
1. Vanguard
2. Surprise Attack
3. All-round Defence

Tau
1. Vertical Envelopment
2. Counter-Attack
3. Fighting Withdrawal

Tyranids
1. First Contact
2. Wave Assault
3. Infestation

Universal
1. Kill Team
2. Linebreaker
3. Clash of Heroes

yeah,
I like the idea of scattering shells. especially if you using paper tokens as I expect they will flutter quite a bit.
What's the shell stats --- Str10/Ap1 ???

bhsman wrote:

byteboy wrote:That Magic card was called Orb of Chaos...

The true power of Orb of Chaos came when you were prepared to tear it to bits.

they made a joke/unglued card about that behavour.
Magic... I love Magic...

Panic...

I was kinda hoping this would provide missions for RTT's and such-but if its just 'fun' missions-thats ok too.

sure would have liked some RTT missions.

If memory serves the shell landing method here was also used, many many years ago, in a version of Epic to see where.... drop pods ? Orbital strikes ? Something like that anyway landed.

I'm rather surprised not to see six different generic missions with six different deployment methods to give a larger variety of rolling a random d6 for casual games.

Would've been a nice book to include the Rules of Engagement article (or an updated 5th Ed version). I know I've mentioned it before when this book last came up, but the Rules of Engagement system was a great way of having asymmetric missions in 40K. Great system, and perfect as an 'Appendix' in this style of book.

H.B.M.C, where was the Rules of Engagement article originally printed? I'd like to see if I can dig it out and 5th edition-ise it.

reds8n wrote:If memory serves the shell landing method here was also used, many many years ago, in a version of Epic to see where.... drop pods ? Orbital strikes ? Something like that anyway landed.

Yep, as mentioned earlier in the thread, it was used for Space Marine drop pods.

After some amount of musing, I'm giving a to the bits of paper. It's only fun after all.

chaplaingrabthar wrote:H.B.M.C, where was the Rules of Engagement article originally printed? I'd like to see if I can dig it out and 5th edition-ise it.

You wish is my eventual call to action.

bhsman wrote:Ah, I'd honestly forgotten about Kill-Team. I can see it now...

-Start with a Battlefleet Gothic game (to determine minor advantages for later games) that takes place over the planet or planets that act as the stage for an upcoming campaign

-Use Combat Patrol/Kill Team to represent boarding actions

-Aeronautical Imperialis for any dogfights that take place

-Planetstrike for the immediate post-BFG game

-Cities of Death for urban combat

-Battle Missions for everything else (Send Kill Teams to go after trade routes, generators, etc.; various missions allowed depending on the position of either winner, loser, etc.)

And all followed under Planetary Empires.

...man that is never going to work out.

Thats exactly the style campaign my club is running now, but we cut out the BFG because there are only 3 or 4 people that play it, and no one into AI. We've even gone so far as to create custom conditions for each map section. Yep, logistical nightmare, but fun as all get out! I wish the Battle Missions book had come out sooner, or maybe we had waited a bit...but there's always the Summer Campaign

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Strictly speaking, Rulebook and Codex are for Tournament play, as Planestrike, CoD and Battle Missions tend to favour specific types of armies (Guard are a nightmare in CoD!) whilst providing others with additional challenges to get the win.

But like it or not, Tourny play isn't terribly high on the agenda at GW. Rules are written with fun in mind. Not that the two are mutually exclusive, but it's easier to write fun and characterful rules than ones perfectly balanced for competitive play.

First I want to say that I really like the silly bomb rule, it sounds fun

Second, I'd buy a tourney add-on in a second. Aside from it being nice to get some interesting and balanced (hopefully) missions, wouldn't it be a pretty sweet way for GW to provide "patches" to the game? I mean, if they were to make it like an annual thing, they could release small updates/FAQs/errata, balance changes and just have it be the "tournament rules of the year. It wouldn't negatively impact any of their "core" players, and isn't that expensive (I think?) to produce.

number9dream wrote:

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Strictly speaking, Rulebook and Codex are for Tournament play, as Planestrike, CoD and Battle Missions tend to favour specific types of armies (Guard are a nightmare in CoD!) whilst providing others with additional challenges to get the win.

But like it or not, Tourny play isn't terribly high on the agenda at GW. Rules are written with fun in mind. Not that the two are mutually exclusive, but it's easier to write fun and characterful rules than ones perfectly balanced for competitive play.

First I want to say that I really like the silly bomb rule, it sounds fun

Second, I'd buy a tourney add-on in a second. Aside from it being nice to get some interesting and balanced (hopefully) missions, wouldn't it be a pretty sweet way for GW to provide "patches" to the game? I mean, if they were to make it like an annual thing, they could release small updates/FAQs/errata, balance changes and just have it be the "tournament rules of the year. It wouldn't negatively impact any of their "core" players, and isn't that expensive (I think?) to produce.

I like the idea of "patches" but it would take quite alot of time for their employees to come up with a new set of tourney rules every year. however if they did manage to make little tweaks every now and then i would love to see how they coud really improve the game between additions. it would also let them "test drive" new rules for upcoming editions which i think would benefit them greatly

Well, I don't think they have to come up with completely new rules - it would be sort of like just yearly revisions, you know?

It could, as you said, also let them test-drive new rules I think they used to do this with their old Warhammer Annuals or whatever they were called, no?

Anyway, all they'd really need to come up with is maybe 1 or 2 new scenarios a year to keep it fresh. Like, say you have 4 (or whatever number is deemed reasonable) standard scenarios, then you replace 2 per year, and maybe after a couple of years you bring back a couple from the first go-around.

And yeah, it would really let them make changes to things that are wrong, without needing to make a big release, while still not losing any sales. They can still make their periodic new editions to bring everything up to speed, and they can still keep their codex+miniature release system.

That would be a nice way of going about doing things XD

more on topic with the thread however i'd like to say that falling pieces of paper sound like fun to me

Maybe I'll visit my FLGS tomorrow, they're a premium store or something these days, entitling them to early sneaks at kits and books.