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 have designed a mission that could potentially be used in a tournament, and I would really appreciate if players would be willing to critique it, and potentially play test it and let me know how it works out! I've played it once so far, and am planning on doing it again this afternoon, but I would love community feedback.

In an effort to draw out and destroy the most valuable units in your opponent's forces, your commanders have ordered that you place high-value materiel in vulnerable locations. There's a catch though: you have to get the supplies back!

Setup: pitched battle as per 40k rulebook.

Mission: each player receives two objectives to place after sides have been determined. Roll off to see who places the first objective, then alternate until all objectives are placed. The objectives are worth a variable amount of kill points if captured as per the normal rules for objectives (a troops unit within 3" and no enemy contesting units, etc). The objectives may not be placed within 6" of a board edge, but have no other restrictions.

If, at the end of the game, a player captures an objective in his opponent's deployment zone, that objective is worth 5 kill points.

If the captured objective is in the "no mans land" between the two deployment zones, it is worth 3 kill points.

If the objective is in the players own deployment zone, it is worth 1 kill point.

Any unit completely destroyed is worth a number of kill points equal to its cost divided by 100, rounding up. E.G. a 45 point unit is worth 1 kill point, a 270 point unit is worth 3, a 400 point unit is worth 4, etc.

Primary objective (15 points): special kill points (add value of objectives captured to value of units destroyed).
(10 points): players tie in number of special kill points.
Secondary objective: control more objectives (5 points)

Tertiary objectives:

Kill your opponent's most valuable HQ unit 1 pt
Kill your opponent's most valuable elite unit 1pt
Kill your opponent's most valuable troops unit 1pt
Kill your opponent's most valuable heavy support unit 1pt
Kill your opponent's most valuable fast attack unit 1pt

I really like this and will be hopefully play testing it in a few days.

Just a few requests of clarification:

So objectives can be placed literally right next to eachother?

Are units only considered killed if completely wiped out?

Yes, I intend that objective placement should create a lot of risk vs. reward thinking. If you place objectives close to each other, you might win big, or lose big.

Have you by any chance play tested this scenario yet?

Yeah, I've played it once, but the more information the better!

How do you handle units with no point values?

Drones from a devilfish, spawn created by gift of chaos, termagants from tervigons, etc.

I do like the kill point system a lot

grankobot wrote:How do you handle units with no point values?

Drones from a devilfish, spawn created by gift of chaos, termagants from tervigons, etc.

0/100=0

yermom wrote:I do like the kill point system a lot

Eh, in my playtesting, I'm finding that it massively favors MSU armies. 5th ed kill points are a lot better system than most give it credit for.

I'm down to try it out, looks like fun.

Played against Gareth using the mission today, and got smashed again, though I'm thinking it's a weakness of the army list, rather than the mission.

It looks great fun. I have one comment: it might be better to simply use VP's and have objectives be worth 500, 300 and 100 points. It saves some calculations and the rounding system means that players will look for units that are x95 points and will never field units that are x05 points.

I like Shrubs suggestion.

Even introducing VPs into the KP system doesn't overcome its inherent imbalances. Armies with many cheap units are going to give up KPs more slowly, and one lucky shot on that uber-expensive unit (like the mawloc coming up under the blocked land raider or a well-placed JotWW) can put one player so far ahead in KPs that the other player can never hope to catch up.

Also with the rounding up there will be some weird break points: a 95 point unit of scouts is worth 1KP, but a 105 point dreadnought is worth 2 KPs. Also also the VP cost of units doesn't necessarily reflect how hard that unit is to kill. A unit of 5 TH/SS terminators--very hard to kill--is worth 2KPs, but so is a 105 point dreadnought that can die to a single lucky lascannon shot. These imbalances don't reflect the skill of the player, but rather flukes in the point values.

Finally, players who know the system in advance can game the scenario to deny KPs by buying many small units that are hard to kill and worth slightly less than one of the multiple-of-100 break points.

So far, the most effective method I've seen of controlling the imbalances of the KP system is the 5X5 system where each player nominates 5 units and those are the only ones worth KPs. Maybe a hybrid of that system--where the opponent's 5 most expensive units are the only ones worth KPs--and then rebalancing the value of the objectives? That would also simplify the math.

I'm going to playtest it today but use standard kps instead of dividing vps/100. Also will keep objectives at least 12" from each other and 6" from table edges.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:I'm going to playtest it today but use standard kps instead of dividing vps/100. Also will keep objectives at least 12" from each other and 6" from table edges.

G

In my playtesting I've found that allowing "stacking" objectives has made for some pretty intense play, something that I think is awesome!

You could stack objectives last year at the Necro and I did it since it was advantageous... I played some games in the evenings since I did not actually play in the GT. So yeah it can really put a twist in the game.

G

My 205 Daemon Prince being worth 3 kp made me a sad panda, but after considering the math on rounding down, too much bs is possible. I'll suck it up, hell my DP should be worth 4 kp, he's so bad ass. Fun scenario, i really liked the mix of objectives and kill points, lots, it added a new dimension to the game. Wanting to try this one again.