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.

Hi Guys,

I would like to say thanks to the guys at Empire Games for helping me put together some really cool missions. The staff is hard at work on finishing the tables and terrain needed for our October tournament.

The Wild West Shootout should be a great event for everyone to enjoy. 40K Radio will be at the even doing a live show and playing in the tournament. Along with Spencer and the boys will be Hobby Master Dave Tayler as our Guest Of Honor. 10 time Golden Deamon Winner Matt Sterbenz will also be available for painting tips and a few lessons.

Along with all that fun we managed to put the 5 missions together and here they are. Everyone that purchased a ticket will get an email with this same PDF in the next 24 to 48 hours. Take a minute to look over the details and please give us a call if you have any questions. We do have 8 seats available so jump on them fast if you want in on the fun.

Thanks guys.

Romeo
Battle Foam

I hope to see everyone there!

First a few questions.
Can you use the new Space Wolf Codex?
How long are the rounds going to be? If you have 7 turn games at 1750 points you need a lot of time.

Here are my notes about the missions:
Mission #1
Looks good, seems like it is close to the ‘Ard Boyz mission. The only problem is that dedicated transports are only 1 KP. That means that you can take several Land Raiders as dedicated transports and they are hard as heck to kill but only give up 1 KP.

Mission #2.
I do not like missions that heavily favor some armies over others. If you take Orks or Tyranids you are in good shape. You love to be in the center of the table, and everyone else is backing away. Tau and Necrons are in a world of hurt.

Mission #3
3 Turns of nightfight is rough for some armies, and great for others. Since you know there is going to be nightfight you can load up on night vision gear, so the ones with the good gear will do much better. Armies with searchlights and blacksun filters have an advantage over armies that have no nightfight wargear like Eldar. Also this is the second mission in a row that highly favors assault armies.

Mission #4.
I like that it is secret, but the downside is that you will not get any feedback on it.

Mission #5
If you have objectives, you need random game length. That will keep everyone from hiding until the final turn and then come out of their hiding hole and do a last second objective grab.

I suggest the missions and answers to questions about them could be made into a nice article with long term value.

Threads in News tend to sink out of site fairly quickly.

edited out frantic, hysterical hyperbole.

I am playing almost all bikes - I can't run to spread out on turn 1 so any template vehicles moving at combat speed will destroy me and it completely negates the speed of my army which is the key feature of it. However, mission 3 allows me some bloody vengeance.

mission #2
I have no infantry models so I can't pick up an objective

mission #3
This is pretty friendly for my list

mission #5
the best bet here will be to castle up in the middle of the which is something that bikes are lousy at.

edited out frantic, hysterical hyperbole.

Somnicide wrote:Wow, the first two missions are pretty close to autoloss for my army (mission #2 is absolute autoloss). My kneejerk reaction is to wonder if it is too late to get my money back?

I am playing almost all bikes - I can't run to spread out on turn 1 so any template vehicles moving at combat speed will destroy me and it completely negates the speed of my army which is the key feature of it. Will I at least get a flat out cover save?

mission #2
I have no infantry models so I can't pick up an objective

mission #3
This is pretty friendly for my list

mission #5
the best bet here will be to castle up in the middle of the which is something that bikes are lousy at.

Man, I wish you would have released this missions earlier, I would have worked toward a different army rather than bringing one that has absolutely no chance of winning one mission (#2) and is severely disadvantaged in at least one other. Based on these I can kind of guess that mission 4 will also suck for a bike army.

That will teach you to build a one type army i.e an unbalanced army that cannot react to changes. If you try and max out your benefits with a gamble that the mission and terrain will suit your army suck it up when the gamble doesn't pay off.

You mean that will teach me to make a legal list using a fifth edition codex?

I am more than prepared to suck it up when the mission is hard for me - my list is far from a power list - my record with it is about 50/50 (much worse than with my daemons, for instance) but impossible?

I cannot move the objectives at all in mission #2 and the victory conditions require you to move it. If they don't want it to move more than 6" a turn, fine, I am okay with that, make it so bikes have a max move of 6" with the objective. That works fine for me.

edit:
I was one of the first to sign up for this tourney and have been stoked for it for a long time. I have recruited 3 other players to come with me here. I don't expect to win best general - I am not that good of a player. I do expect for the event to be fun and fair. I expect that it will be, too. The missions are posted and the guys at battlefoam have said all along that they want it to be a fun event. That is all I am looking for is fun games for both me and my opponent. I have a GW GT best sportsman for a tourney where I finished middle of the pack - I rec'd 4 out 5 favorite opponents and those games were an absolute blast, including the two where I was tabled.

The designers posted them here for feedback or they would have just kept them all quiet like #4. So don't get all pissy when I post my feedback.

Somnicide wrote:You mean that will teach me to make a legal list using a fifth edition codex?

I am more than prepared to suck it up when the mission is hard for me - my list is far from a power list - my record with it is about 50/50 (much worse than with my daemons, for instance) but impossible?

I cannot move the objectives at all in mission #2 and the victory conditions require you to move it. If they don't want it to move more than 6" a turn, fine, I am okay with that, make it so bikes have a max move of 6" with the objective. That works fine for me.

But that is the point. It doesn't matter that the list is legal - irrelevent argument. It is unbalanced because you chose it that way. It is not able to adapt to a rule/ special scenerio. That's your fault for designing your list that way not the fault of the person designing the mission. Your list should be able to cope, adapt and have options for things you didn't foresee - your list doesn't. If it auto loses it is because you built a bad list.

edit to your edit:-
I am glad you have and I am glad you are a good person to play against. However, also irrelevent. Why should mission change for your overly relient on one choice army build?

edited out pissy reply

My list is fine with the standard missions and even the 'ard boyz one. Mission 1 screws me, but as I said above, mission #3 benefits me, I am okay with that wash. Mission #2 is unplayable for me. That is my problem.


one more edit:

from talking to them over time, their intent with these missions is to make cool, interesting, fun mission to play, not missions that make it impossible for a specific army build. It is my guess that they didn't playtest that mission with bike armies - fine, it is not a super common army, that is why I like it - it is fun to play and fun to play against. If it was an oversight they should know about it and change it appropriately, if it was intentional, they should say so (though again, I know Kyle from LA and am pretty sure that wasn't his intent).

and another:
the fun to play comment is to counter the insinuation of a one sided list built to solely to win games and also to point out that fun games are most important to me. As I said above that is the intent (as I understood it from posts and conversations) of this GT. Having one mission that is impossible to win is not fun at a tourney. I even said in my initial post that it was a kneejerk reaction. But the designers should know that since that is what they will be facing if people haven't seen the missions before the game. My feedback is for the mission designers, not a random person on a message board. If you designed them, that is my feedback please respond as such. If not, then carry it to pm and tell me how much I suck there.

Somnicide wrote:edited out pissy reply


from talking to them over time, their intent with these missions is to make cool, interesting, fun mission to play

the fun to play comment is to counter the insinuation of a one sided list built to solely to win games and also to point out that fun games are most important to me.

If not, then carry it to pm and tell me how much I suck there.

Didn't say you sucked ... said "suck it up". I also don't believe a strong list makes you a dick to play against or a not for fun player - made that point clear in many of the Wrecking Crew posts. Wasn't insinuating anything other than your list relies on one thing - bikes moving well. Anything other that that is bad writing on my part whilst at work.

I understand it is feed back. The point I am making that I don't think I am making clear enough is your feedback should be ignored because it is a one sided list that cannot adapt - mission designers should not have to take that into account. It may be great and work for standard missions - if it doesn't work in an unexpected scenerio that is your fault not the mission designer.

I have played in tournies when you don't know what the mission is and have heard sharp intakes of breathe as people realize they are going to get bent over a table - even wrote some scenerios myself for events that have done this. But, if you list isn't relient on one thing then you shouldn't need to know the missions right?

Personally I think 'ard boyz etc shouldn't tell you what the missions are. Let the cards fall as they do. As you point out at least you have advanced notice for this one - maybe they will change it maybe they won't - or maybe you could change your list and try something else for fits and giggles.

Hi Guys,

We actually made a typo on the second mission. It was going to read "any model can pick up the objective but its movement is reduced to 6" max per turn once it has it". This will be corrected on the official post on our site this weekend. It will also be updated on the mission sheets.

Hope that helps guys.

Romeo
Battle Foam

now that is funny.

Mission #1

"The players will roll off to see who places first. The players must take turns placing their units using “deep strike rules”. These units can be placed anywhere on the table. On a roll of double 1’s the deep striking unit will be destroyed! If the deep striking units land on a friendly/enemy unit they will be placed 1” away for that unit. The unit must be placed, so that all models in the unit will be allowed to deploy. Units cannot assault the first turn unless the units’ special rule allows them to. Vehicles count as moving at combat speed. All drop Pods will be deployed in the first turn."

Players alternating placing units by deepstriking any where on the table seems to heavly favor assualt armies, particularly since there is no mishap for landing on a friendly/enemy model. Perhaps just keep the normal deepstrike rules?

If you are making everything deepstrike, having a rule where 1/36 times your unit is destroyed it not fun. Either make the occurence much more likely so it will effect everyone or get rid of it (my preferred solution).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mission #2

I suggest making the objective pick up rule something like the following:

"It can be picked up by any model with the exception of non walker vehicles. Once you have the objective, the unit the objective carrying model belongs to can move no more than 6” per turn (so no running, assualting, teleporting, lashing, dancing or other special movement). A model carrying the objective can not embark on a vehicle.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mission #3
What happens if you have more objectives but fewer victory points?

The mission states -
"If a player has accumulated 400 - 849 difference in victory points and ... "

Does this means you have 400- 849 more victory points than your opponent?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mission #4

is perfect as far as I can tell.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mission #5

Similar question to #3.

What happens if you have more objectives but fewer kill points?

Manimal has hit many of the questions I have, but I feel the bear repeating... Plus I've got some discourse to add about the "wackiness".

Mission 1- I'm guessing there are no reserves. You've covered drop pods... but what about demons? Is this mission really going to allow a demon player to deploy his entire army on turn 1 with no deep strike mishaps, a mere inch away from my own units? I appreciate the effort to "mix it up" but just 10 minutes of thinking about this deployment style would have uncovered a massive amount of imbalance. My codex was not designed to deep strike their units, and it certainly was NOT designed to be able to survive an aggressive opponent starting the game 1" away from each of my units, and likely surrounding my avenues of egress.

You've already got my money. I'll be there... but wack-tastic untested missions like this are NOT appreciated.

As far as the rules questions that popped up. Do I mishap if I scatter off the table or can I reduce that distance too?

Mission 2- Ok, without changing the wording. You have made the mission unwinnable for some legally built, Jervis approved fluffy lists. With the changing of the wording it sounds like land raiders can pick up the objective now? Why does an imperial guard army have to move 6" a turn into my opponents deployment zone? I've already got a great plan to play for a tie. Which is all I can rationally do with any build from my codex. Not appreciated as well.

As for rules. Just like Manimal asked. What if I managed to carry the objective into my enemies deployment zone, but in the effort of doing so, got murdered on KP? Which is very likely to happen considering the silly mini-game that the "football" carrier has to play? Is that a tie too?

Mission 3- Ok, victory points with table quarters. Does any unit NOT listed "claim" a table quarter? How would one "contest" a table quarter? Can the units listed contest a quarter but not claim it? First three missions down, and there hasn't been a single benefit to taking more than the legally required 2 troops choices. Oh yeah, its a spearhead... finally the IG player gets the advantage that he completely lost on the first two missions. Oh wait, its nightfight half of the game.

Mission 4- I'm willing to bet my hat that this mission will be wacky, biased, and untested.

Mission 5- Now here is an excellent example of a good mission. You guys wanted to make something a bit more interesting than just missions out of the book, well here is one. It uses playtested, balanced rules concepts, stacked on top of one another. It doesn't benefit or punish any particular playstyle of army, as long as their armies are designed to take objectives and resilient to kill points. A fantastic mission... but, as has already been mentioned, is an incomplete mission until you determine what happens to the guy that has more objectives but LESS kill points. This WILL occur. The shootier army will focus on kill points while the more mobile army will focus on objectives. It is unlikely that in any close fought battle, that someone will win KP and objectives. Those players that do that are blowing out their opponent.


I am sorry that I have to be so critical. I love tournaments, I am really excited to make the drive to Mesa, talking 40k the whole way with my buddies. I can't wait to see my firends that I made in going to tournaments that I know are going to be there. I'll gladly give you the money, expecting nothing but a good time. But since these missions were posted here for feedback I had to weigh in.

If you REALLY want people to go and have no interest at all in winning games, you should not call it a tournament. Call it a 'Game Day'. Make cool looking tables, invent fun little one-off games... ork trukk racing, necron tomb raid, necromunda gang war, aeronautica bombing run... But when you use the word "tournament" to describe what you are hosting, I'd prefer balanced missions that were well tested. I had heard through Somnicide that you guys were all testing the missions, which I believe to an extent. When testing missions 1 and 2, your testing either did not include demons and orks, or your testing group was conciously biased against armies that need maneuver room to win. When you tested mission 3, shooty armies likely did well, so you added nightfight, with absolutely no memory of how biased the first two missions were.

I was very excited to bring my lovingly painted Vostroyan army that I have been slaving over for months and months. But as of right now, its looking like I can have some EASY wins if I just walk in their with the ork army I took to last years Vegas GT. Which was basecoated and then dipped into devlan mud wash. The better looking army isn't going to survive these biased missions and so might not make it to the big day. As Somnicide has discussed, he has been hard at work on an army that consists of space marine bikes as troops choices. Its not all bikes, it just doesn't happen to have infantry models. After seeing the missions, he has already discussed with me the likelihood that he will be taking his vegas GT list from LAST year... a demon army. He and I will do VERY well given the missions presented here. And thats a real shame, because he really wanted to challenge himself by painting something new, that uses a different tactical approach.

I hope this gets read. I realize its too late to have an effect, but I need my opinion to get heard, I bought my ticket before these missions were revealed, so I can't cast a dollar vote. This critique is about all I've got left.

I apologize if the TO or anyone involved has taken my criticisms personally. You shouldn't. I am appreciative of the thankless task that is organizing tourneys. And you don't have to worry about me being a rabble rouser or malcontent during the tourney, I'm going there to have fun, and that is what I'll do. I just wish I could have taken my Vostroyans and felt like I had a fair shot.

Hi Guys,

Shep you have no reason to apologize because this type of feedback is very helpful. We released the missions early so small things could be looked at and discussed. Just like on mission #2 we noticed a typo that needs to be fixed and improved.

I personally played all 5 missions and I tried playing the worst army for each mission to see how one sided it could get. I never really had much trouble but I do admit it was a bit harder to win some missions then others.

Mission #1 I found to be a whole bunch of fun. I used Orks for this and found that by turn 3 I had 6 or 7 different mini battles going on around the table. It was cool for us because it made the whole table playable all at once and did not allow for hiding or sitting around getting shoot at in open ground. It was punch you in the face good right from the start.

I can say that my guard would have had a bit of a problem playing my orks, but I would have gotten a full round of shooting them at point blank range before they charged. This way I would shoot them with orders, First rank, Second Rank, Third Rank, then charged them. That would take their charge bonus off and I would have thinned them down a bit first.

On the other hand, if I was my orks against guard I would make sure to deep strike them into cover so I get the save and then charge out or waaagh and kick the crap out of them. Its really all about making it work for you at that point.

Anyway, please keep posting your thoughts and concerns. After all we are newbies to this whole mission writing business. This tournament is a tournament, but it will have a very fun laid back feel to it. More fun then tourney in my opinion. After all everyone is going home with a cool prize.

Romeo
Battle Foam

You really should have play tested these missions more.

Adepticon has its primer events where they play test the missions first, and you should have had an RTT at Game Empire to test these missions and get some feedback. They had an RTT 2 weeks ago and you could have played these missions then.

I know everyone there plays marines, so it is hard to get a feel for how other armies will do, but there are 3 missions (Missions #1, #2, and #3) which highly favor assault armies, and none that really favor shooting armies. No armies should be at a huge handicap do to the missions, and a good mission should balance armies, not separate them.

Just got back from Manimal's house where we playtested mission one twice. He played nids I played my guard army.

First game was over in 20 minutes. Before his turn 2 started, he had 1 carnifex alive, and one permanently tarpitted by 30 stubborn guardsmen. In the confusion, I had forgotten to deploy 2 medusas, with slightly different rolling, and the deployment of my entire army, I could have tabled him in a SINGLE turn.

We played again, and he went first. As turn 6 began, I had 3 members of a platoon command squad, and an immobilized and weapon destroyed devildog left on the table. I had killed a zoanthrope, a hive tyrant, and one unit of WoN gaunts.

So a 20 minute tabling massacre for me, followed by a 6 turn tabling form him that would also have been a massacre if he didn't roll double 1's on one of his deep strikes.

Manimal took many, many pictures, I took very detailed notes. Look for the batrep to be posted soon.

I sure hope I go first on game 1.

Something similar was done one year at a 'ardboyz tourney. In all but a couple of games, It came down to who rolled higher and got to shoot the other guy up turn 1. The armies that went second and won were both Nidzilla, and this was in 4th edition, not 5th.

Ok Guys,

So after listing to everyones suggestions it was only right to make some changes.

The new missions posted at the top of this thread is corrected and final. You will notice an easier scoring system and corrections to mission 1, 2, and 5.

This should fix 99% of all the issues we had before.

Please keep in mind that this event is going to be very fun and laid back. We want everyone to enjoy themselves and have a good time. Gaming will be kick butt, but mainly we want you guys to have a good time.

Romeo
Battle Foam

Just took a quick glance at the rules while at work...

Mission #1 - The option to creatively deploy is there for both players, the option is there for a player to deploy as he intended, and with the reserves rule being in effect, passive, reactive armies have a recourse against an aggressive deployment from a CC army. If I am going second as an IG player I could see myself deep striking my banewolves and perhaps some other fun things. But I am much more protected from an army comprised of nothing but melta getting to fire all of it at close range before I've had a movement phase. A key element is that both players will actually have a movement phase, which will protect them from some devastating template based attacks that were happening in our test games. Without thinking too much on it, I believe that is a very fair and measured change to the mission.

Mission #2 - The heart and soul of this mission is biased towards aggression. Some armies just aren't geared for moving towards their opponents. Some armies that is all that they want. That being said, the change to which model may carry the objective, gives my IG army hope (I MIGHT try to run it in with my leman russ, with a platoon screening melta and charges) Likely I'll be playing for a tie here. But the change is fair, inclusive, and an improvement. The clarity of how the objective is 'carried' is also more clear as a result.

Mission #3 - I didn't have a big problem with the mission leading into this revision, I have enough searchlights to swallow the harsh night fight restriction. I am still unclear on the "claim/contest" relationship between the units. Is there a way to "block" a scoring unit from scoring a quarter? Or is the only way to nullify their points increase to also score the quarter yourself with an approved unit? As soon as that question is answered, this mission will be crystal clear to me.

Mission #4 - I am certainly NOT ready for anything. That isn't possible.

Mission #5 - I miss the inventiveness of the KP/objective overlay. I didn't think it would be impossible to make the dual nature work. But it probably is a bit more complex when you look under the hood (which I didn't do) and I also have no idea how you will be scoring victories. The mission is now quite clear, which is the first and most important objective of any mission ruleset.


You have mentioned your intent to make the event fun and laid back. That's exactly what I want. I don't want to take a friday off from stressful work in order to have a stressful tournament weekend. And 40k = fun to me, any way you slice it.

What I don't subscribe to, is that there is some way to artificially 'force' fun and laid back through the invention of wild and wacky missions. The logic just doesn't follow that a mission that is difficult to understand, that neither player (who has likely never met each other and doesn't have a shared language of rules resolving) can make sense of, will somehow create relaxation. There are people who just want to push models around, they'll take whatever interpretation of the unclear rules their opponent offers, and be disadvantaged as a result. The rest of the players will discuss at best, and argue at worst, for their particular interpretation.

People who are laid back, will be laid back. The dude abides. People who are wound tight, are going to be wound tight and spaz out, regardless of how insane the mission is. Everyone will have fun, barring sportsmanship issues. Its 40k. The trick is to make your missions as invisible as possible. I think it is hard for some tourney organizers to remember that its not about "their tourney" its about 40k, 40k already has rules, and everyone who plays 40k shares the language of those rules. Tourneys are fun, tourney organizers are heroes, but they shouldn't seek to mould the game to their biases because they have an opportunity to.

Lastly, everything about Battlefoam has blown me away as far as customer support is concerned. I don't know exactly who is the power behind this team up of battlefoam and the venue, but in any case... it is VERY appreciated the amount of dialog we've been able to have about the missions.

Posting the missions, listening to feedback and actually making changes when some vocal customers raise a concern is a rarity. Thanks so much for listening, its making me even more excited to travel and participate. I've been needing one more little push for me to transition to battle foam cases, and if your customer support is of the same quality as this dialog, (I have heard from a few that it is) then that should be the last push i need.

Many many thanks again, I'll see you in a couple weeks... with my Vostroyans!

We really need a clarification on contesting quarters in scenario 3.

has anyone noticed how much some gamers complain. "the mission sucks for my army", "it was over in 20 minutes". I have had games that dont bode well for me at major tournuies and walked out ontop. I have had some that did and failed misserably. The dice gods can hate you or love you no matter how good your strategy is or deployment is. Didn't matter though I drove or flew hundreds of miles and spent lots of money onhotels and food and such and had the time of my life at all of them. I had a player screw me out of best sport at a GT in canada by one point since he felt the game lasted to short.We went 6 turns but I was playing 350pts short and a space marine army vs. IG. I only played with models I painted. You know what though I meet tons of great people so all those trophies didnt mean a thing. My point overall is please use constructive criticism by all means, but dont bash on the designers and say your screwed and talk about it like they are putting on a bad event. The truth is you are just a bad sport. My take on all this.

Empchild wrote:has anyone noticed how much some gamers complain.

Yeah, kinda like right now?

Empchild wrote:My point overall is please use constructive criticism by all means, but dont bash on the designers and say your screwed and talk about it like they are putting on a bad event.

My criticism was quite constructive. In fact I actually playtested a mission for the tourney organizers and gave them results from that playtest. Which was their point in posting them on a message board. They then changed that mission based on feedback that they received from myself and others. It doesn't get more constructive than that.

Empchild wrote:The truth is you are just a bad sport. My take on all this.

Nice trolling.

I looked these over and think they look kinda cool.

Thanks for the effort, guys, I think you need to put these up here on the site someplace where they won't disappear.

They look fun, and can't wait to try them out.

Empchild wrote:The truth is you are just a bad sport. My take on all this.

Nice trolling.

Empchild wrote:
As long as you get out there have a great opponent and play a game we all love thats all that matters. That is all I am saying thats all.

Really? Because it seems like you were saying:

Empchild wrote:My point overall is please use constructive criticism by all means, but dont bash on the designers and say your screwed and talk about it like they are putting on a bad event. The truth is you are just a bad sport.

eh cant please everybody but take it how you will. Best of luck to all of you this weekend at the event. Looks like it will be very promising.