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.

Did a search but didnt find anything on this one, so here it is. I was talking to my local GW manager (so usual disclaimers apply) and we were talking about how Kill Points really dont work for some armies. He said that there is a mission book in the works for all races (one book, not one for each). In it there will be 3 race specific missions that are tailored to what that army would be doing (ie fluff related) which would also be aimed at how that army plays. Examples given was Drop pod assault for marines, raid for eldar and dark eldar, and a protect a tombworld for necrons. Dont know if these were confirmed mission types or just examples of what might be in the book.

How it will work is on rolling missions you roll a D6, 1-2 is standard mission, 2-3 your race's missions, 5-6 opponent's missions. Either way, it does sound good, especially for armies that struggle with certain mission types.

This does sound interesting and I say needed to some degree with the limited mission options in the core book. A minor rumor, but good if true.

I would love this book to become a reality not just some "black-shirts" fantasy.

Well Jervis mentioned something about it also when I played him on Friday, seemed like it was going to be cool. One of the scenarios was 3 baneblades trying to get off the board while facing down a regular 1500 point army.

I guess every working gun that the baneblades had counted as a kill point or something crazy like that. I dunno, but it sounds like fun because I already have three baneblades! Huzzah!

More missions would be nice.

Funny- I was just looking at the 'Ard Boyz semis scenarios and thinking that the basic scenarios were starting to get boring. I came to Dakka Rumors to post on the 'Ard Boyz thread and see what everyone thought about a fair way to create non-basic scenrios for tourney that don't screw any particular armies unduly. Then I found this thread at the top of the page. Kinda creepy, good old synchronicity.

MegaDave wrote:Well Jervis mentioned something about it also when I played him on Friday, seemed like it was going to be cool. One of the scenarios was 3 baneblades trying to get off the board while facing down a regular 1500 point army.

Given how slow Baneblades are, either they start 18" from the board edge, or the scenario isn't about escaping as much as surviving. They can't even cross a regular sized table in under 8 turns, and that's in a straight line.

I'm in favour of this. I rapidly get bored with vanilla scenarios for games, and don't really have the time to think up my own stuff, so a (caveat: decently priced) book like this could be good. It's official, but got sod-all to do with tournament gaming, so we won't have to put up with tournament-gamer-whining on the subject either: !"mwaa...mwaa... mwaaa...its' not fair......you army's got an advantage over my army...boo hoo hoo...."

Scenarios that are probably unbalanced in that they likely favour one side over the other, but still give an interesting game are great provided everyone understands they are about a narrative story, not a dick-measuring contest!

(J/k)

What? You mean moving little bits of painted plastic accross a board along with some arbitrary rules and some dice doesn't prove how much of a man you are? You better keep this a secret as it might upset a lot of people.

I've always wanted to play a "Thunderhawk Down" game where you have a huge desert Ork city and a crashed Thunderbird in the middle with some people on board. The Marine are sent on a rescue mission in a convey of Rhinos entering from each side of the board, and in every building and street are orks trying to blast them to pieces and setting up barricades.

yeah,
this sounds good, I like the idea of fluff driven games.

But from a balance point of veiw i can only see this making things worse: as is there are armys with disadvantages, add in army specific missions and some armys will gain further advantage and others further disadvantage depending on who they play against...

So good from a casual gamers point of veiw (me... yay)...

And Bad from a game balance point of veiw (tourney players)
... unless GW hand out 100's of combinations of army vs army (playtested to death) missions

this book sounds like it's basically going to be small scale apoc.... and i'll buy.

PAnic...

There is a mission in Imperial armour 4 named "Thunderhawk Down" which is, funnily enough, exactly as you describe (swapping orks for nids)

Howard A Treesong wrote:I've always wanted to play a "Thunderhawk Down" game where you have a huge desert Ork city and a crashed Thunderbird in the middle with some people on board. The Marine are sent on a rescue mission in a convey of Rhinos entering from each side of the board, and in every building and street are orks trying to blast them to pieces and setting up barricades.

fattdex wrote:There is a mission in Imperial armour 4 named "Thunderhawk Down" which is, funnily enough, exactly as you describe (swapping orks for nids)

Boooo! I thought it out years ago though but never had the resources to play such and epic game, I think it would work better with orks as it would fit the real events better. Tyrannids are probably better for a Rorke's Drift game where the majority of attackers had no ranged weapons. GW did that too though for Gamesday some years ago, but they did it with Orks. They've got it all the wrong way around I tells you.

This sounds like it could be epic win. It would require a degree of playtesting that I doubt GW could imagine, but if it works it would expand the mission bank exponentially.

Sounds good to me. I love weird scenarios, and the ones in the rulebook look a bit boring. I don't care if they're properly playtested; it's not like I'm going to play each scenario multiple times or anything.

Why don't players make their own scenarios and post them?

We don't have to reply on GW for scenarios, especially as they will never playtest them.

The "internet community" could easily playtest scenarios.

Osbad wrote:I'm in favour of this. I rapidly get bored with vanilla scenarios for games, and don't really have the time to think up my own stuff, so a (caveat: decently priced) book like this could be good. It's official, but got sod-all to do with tournament gaming, so we won't have to put up with tournament-gamer-whining on the subject either: !"mwaa...mwaa... mwaaa...its' not fair......you army's got an advantage over my army...boo hoo hoo...."

Scenarios that are probably unbalanced in that they likely favour one side over the other, but still give an interesting game are great provided everyone understands they are about a narrative story, not a dick-measuring contest!

(J/k)

Hallelujah! Preach it Brother!

Stuff your notions of game balance. Stuff your Tournaments. I want to have fun. If these missions are about the character of the armies, and have interesting Victory Conditions, so much the better. Much like the missions presented in the Imperial Armour books, this is what 40k should be about. Set piece battles.

I'm hesitant to ever say "This is what 40K should be about".
Personally, I'm fond of game balance and a good narrative, and they don't have to be mutually exclusive.
I suspect this book will be like every other GW rules product.
A good idea badly executed and then never supported again.

Really? Tournaments could embrace them if a select few Tournament Players could let go of their penis enhancing, and understand it should just be about meeting new gamers, having some fun, and maybe get a meaningless trophy and bit of paper at the end of the day, instead of inflicting yourself on new victims, crushing the fun for your opponents, and maybe getting a meaningless trophy and bit of paper at the end of the day.

*Facepalm*
Okay, keep arguing against posts you construct in your head MDG. It's obvious you're not actually reading mine.

As it's been already stated in the 5th Ed. Rulebook, GW is moving 40K away from powergaming tourneys. Hence the "Gray areas" in the rules and such. In essence GW want to make the game more enjoyable and attractive to new players.

I wouldn't find it odd if they released a Fluff based objective/mission book.

Remember: If you want a fun, friendly game, don't play tourneys. They aren't for everyone.

I would like a fluff based mission book, I think it would be good to have added and let people play for fun (You know, that weird thing they created the game for) and hopefully get some of the kids to stop there constant bickering about how the rules are not fair because they can't win every game.

Da Boss wrote:I'm hesitant to ever say "This is what 40K should be about".
Personally, I'm fond of game balance and a good narrative, and they don't have to be mutually exclusive.

Well, I agree with you, but there's definately something to be said for unbalanced scenarios. The Battle of Thermopylae couldn't be called a balanced fight, but it was certainly an awesome fight! Some of my most memorable games of 40K involved imbalanced scenarios.

I suspect this book will be like every other GW rules product.
A good idea badly executed and then never supported again.

Yeah, like Warhammer, and Warhammer 40K, and LotR, and 40K Apocalypse... oh, right. :S

Yeah,

Is there a Chance that we are talking about planet Strike here and not even knowing it???


As for playing baddly wrote or gimicky Senarios...
there's usually not much fun in playing on the losing side of unbalanced games... esp. knowing your the guy thats going to lose before you start...

I know theres the under dog angle, I play halflings in bloodbowl, so i get it. But I'd rather see a set of balanced senarios where either side have a fair changce of winning. and This requires playtesting.

I want this! I just hope they make it good!

PAniC..

If GW were sophisticated rules designers they would be able to design scenarios that were unbalanced in terms of opposing forces and give margins of victory or winning conditions that rebalanced them.

I dont see how marines have a problem with kill point guard need some help in tht area. I think they should do it like they did in the Ard boyz. Clearly that was GW admitting thing IG have a problem with that scenario.

Kilkrazy wrote:If GW were sophisticated rules designers they would be able to design scenarios that were unbalanced in terms of opposing forces and give margins of victory or winning conditions that rebalanced them.

Well, sure, to a point. There's only so much you can do, when all you have to go on is point values and a force org chart, though. You can only really approximate balance anyway, which doesn't require too much playtesting.

"If GW were sophisticated rules designers they would be able to design scenarios that were unbalanced in terms of opposing forces and give margins of victory or winning conditions that rebalanced them."\

It sounds like none of you have ever in your life played LotR. That game was created by Games Workshop and has all of the interestingness and balance that you continually pine for. In my personal opinion itst the best game they have developed so far pertaining to rules and playability. The game just gets amazingly fair and most of the scenarios they have narrative driven rules behind them.

So pretty much we do have proof that GW is capable of doing this. You just don't play the right system.

Well LOTR just doesn't strike me as somthing I would want to play. I love the movies and .... well I dont know anything about it and dont know anyone else who plays it.

LOTR has an advantage though, it doesn't have to deal with the legacy baggage weighing down the Warhammer systems, which meant that the designers could use their experience to get it right the first time. Considering that they managed to write Epic: Armageddon, Blood Bowl 3rd+, Warmaster, and so on, I'd say that problem isn't with GW's design staff, but the restrictions they're saddled with.