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.

Linky poo to BOLS



And originally from B&C

Oops, forgot to mention this to you guys from October! Bascially I have been unhappy with the bland missions that are the dominate driving factor of how we play 40K (including list building and style of play), so I took the bull by the horns and wrote up alternative ideas for the game, with 3 missions for Space Marines & Orks as examples. These missions are designed to be race specific and tailored to the character of the army in question (i.e. Space Marines targeting HQ & Elite units in favour of Troops, while Ork HQ units earn extra VPs for destroying things to prove how tough they are!).

Anyhow, I sent these ideas to none other than Jervis Johnson himself, pointing out I find it particular silly in the standard missions when a unit of 4 Genestealers stay on an objective to win a game instead of jumping on the nearby Guardsman and feasting when in reality the Hive mind would do the opposite.

Below is the response I got;

"It was quite eerie reading your letter, as I've just finished work on a supplement for 40K that is very similar. Clearly great minds think alike! Unfortunately it will be a while before Warhammer 40,000 Battle Missions is published, but when it is I think you'll find that it covers just the kind of thing you describe in your letter; army specific scenarios based on the tactics and strategy used by the army in question."

Read into that what you will!

P.S. Sorry Jervis if I have betrayed your trust here a little, just thought we should see what support for this idea the masses might have!

Lowinor wrote:

Augustus wrote:Lowinor, how about this, could I ask you to change your focus for a bit? About a "winning position" do you think, in an average game, when a waveserpent moved to be within 3 inches of an objective, and that objective was surrounded by 3 different scoring units in 3 inches also, from the opposing army, it is fair to call that a "winning position"?

3 scoring units, vs. 1 weaponless transport, Eldar win. WHo really had the stronger position there?

That's not a winning position, that's a rules aberation, the infantry obviously control the objective. It's a very artifical gamey device.

If you're looking at it from a fluff perspective, maybe. If so, it's easy enough to say that whatever "controlling" an objective entails, troops are just too embarrassed to do it if anyone is watching

I do think it's somewhat silly, though, from a game perspective it's irrelevant. I think 5e is a more strategic game than 4e overall; both have plenty of cases where game rules create silly situations if one tries to look at them through the fanciful lens of "simulating reality".

Maybe this isn't making as much sense as I want it to. Of course controlling an objective is an abstract concept, what does that mean anyway? That said, I don't want to sound like I am only talking about picking on Eldar, or fast skimmers or vehicles or indeed any army. Just mechanics wise, I think it would be reasonable for the side with MORE scoring units in 3 inches of an objective to control it, whatever the units are.

This idea of the fix I had in mind hopefully lends more insight into where my gripe was headed. Imagine, if thats how objectives work then IG having a platoon (3+ scroing units) on an objective might even ...GASP... give them some hope of holding it...

?

I don't get how swooping in on the last turn is that effective of a strategy. When do you do it? On turn 5 there is a 2/3 chance the game will go on and give you a chance to blow up the swooper. On turn 6 the game goes on with a 50% chance.

So on turn 7 you are guaranteed a last turn, but by that point you have had 7 turns to remove the threat so failing to do so is the player's fault, not the mission designers.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

You dont think there is any case for 1 unit taking an objective from 2 or more being bad either?

It's not just about swooping.

Well what's an objective, fluff wise? If it's a VIP or disarming a bomb then a squad coming in and ruining the rescue/execution/disarming/etc. can be very bad indeed. What if it's two squads of Grots holding an objective from a rampaging Chaos Terminator Squad?

Again, since every game has a variable turn sequence, you can never be sure what the last turn is and so you always should have a plan on how to remove the threat or prevent it from reaching your lines. I've had games where I would have won on turn 5, won on turn 6, and then lost/drew turn 7. Who's fault is it that I lost? I don't blame the mission, I blame the fact that I was unable to cope with whatever tactic my opponent was using.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

OK, can I borrow those rose colored glasses in your avatar they look nice!

Haha... Honestly though I really haven't had any issues with the 5th ed missions and see them as significantly better than the 4th ed crap we had.

That being said, I would like to see a missions book as I like playing special scenarios.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Wow!

Everything is fine! It has all become clear!

Ozymandias wrote:Haha... Honestly though I really haven't had any issues with the 5th ed missions and see them as significantly better than the 4th ed crap we had.

That being said, I would like to see a missions book as I like playing special scenarios.

Just kidding BTW.

Me too!

Augustus wrote:Wow!

Everything is fine! It has all become clear!

Trust me, it's easier to live life this way.*





*You don't see me starting any "5th edition is sooooo haaaaard!" threads now do you?

Ozymandias, King of Kings

I don't dislike the 5e missions as much as some people, but they aren't the sort of missions I get exicted about playing again and again. The 'ardboys style missiions, adepticon style three tiered objective style, and even missions that simply add in some variety (like having a central objective in Take and Hold) are all much more playable.

I guess I didn't have the experiences that the rest of you did in fourth edition missions. Each had an equal number of VPs possible in both killing enemy units and claiming quarters, the table center, loots, etc. Yes, Recon was a lousy mission, and annihilation was just a complicated "line up and shoot," but I was happier in general playing those mission than I am the fifth edition ones.

With the exception of escalation, I like 4E missions better.

Here's how most 4th ed games went.

"Ok, going to roll for mission"
"Ok, now going to roll for level"
"Crap, rolled Omega, wanna just play Gamma?"
"Sure, Omega sucks!"

or

"Crap, rolled Omega; well you win, grats on the game."

Ozymandias, King of Kings

But that's where I would make a distinction. Alpha, Omega, Gamma would be compared to deployment types under 5th.

Now that has me thinking, I wonder how hard it would be to take the 4th edition scenarios and pair them with the 5th edition deployment types, setup, and random game length. Hmmmm

Every time my group has done a control point game we always ended in a tie game, never have we had an actually winner due to control points.
So a couple friends and I been kicking around an idea that might fun the final turn rush. Stealing the idea from the Dawn of War games somwhat.

-- It takes a full game turn for any unit to contest an objective. --

Meaning if you charge something at an objective, it would actually have to stay around at least a turn to enough of a threat to actually... contest it. This would mean that someone can't just dive something into an objective and cost it on the very last turn, and the opponent would get at least one chance to counter act it before it actually do go contested. You could still try a last chance push and try to wipe out the troops holding the objective through. Note that this is to contest an objective, still debating if this should also affect capturing control points. Still actually never used any of these rule ideas yet but we were thinking about trying it shortly.

SirRouga wrote:Every time my group has done a control point game we always ended in a tie game, never have we had an actually winner due to control points.
So a couple friends and I been kicking around an idea that might fun the final turn rush. Stealing the idea from the Dawn of War games somwhat.

-- It takes a full game turn for any unit to contest an objective. --

Meaning if you charge something at an objective, it would actually have to stay around at least a turn to enough of a threat to actually... contest it. This would mean that someone can't just dive something into an objective and cost it on the very last turn, and the opponent would get at least one chance to counter act it before it actually do go contested. You could still try a last chance push and try to wipe out the troops holding the objective through. Note that this is to contest an objective, still debating if this should also affect capturing control points. Still actually never used any of these rule ideas yet but we were thinking about trying it shortly.

That is a great idea!
Subtle and creates a completely different dynamic.

Just last weekend I played an Apocalypse game using the suggestions in Apocalypse reload that sound very, very similar to the AT-43 mission concept Hellfury is describing.

Basically, you check to see which objectives are held at the end of each game turn, and each objective held is worth one point equal to the turn you're capturing it on.

So an objective held on Turn 1 is worth 1 Point, but an objective held on Turn 7 is worth 7 points.


I really, really enjoyed this mission style because it still puts a heavy emphasis on holding the objectives at the *end* of the game (as they're worth waaaay more points) but it gives players a reason to maneuver and capture objectives on every single turn of the game.

This really changes the game and I would definitely recommend everyone giving it a try. It is especially great with a bunch of objectives as used in Apocalypse.


The only thing that potentially concerns me about it is it gives the player who goes 2nd a tremendous advantage throughout the game as he's able to see exactly what his opponent is going for and then attempt to counter it. I'm not sure if this is bad enough to make the system flawed (I don't think so), but an alternative would be to accumulate Objective Points at the end of every PLAYER turn instead of just GAME turn.



And as for the discussion regarding 'Capture and Control', do you guys not use the VP tiebreaker system? Because in my experience once you add that factor in I have no problem with C&C because the player who thinks he's winning in VPs can play for the tie (minor win by VPs) while the person who thinks they're behind in VPs has to go for broke and try to contest/capture the enemy objective by the end of the game.

yakface wrote:Just last weekend I played an Apocalypse game using the suggestions in Apocalypse reload that sound very, very similar to the AT-43 mission concept Hellfury is describing.

Basically, you check to see which objectives are held at the end of each game turn, and each objective held is worth one point equal to the turn you're capturing it on.

So an objective held on Turn 1 is worth 1 Point, but an objective held on Turn 7 is worth 7 points.

I am obviously biased, but I like how that rewards players not only during the game, but it trumps AT-43 by making the values a cumulative upkeep. It rewards early game control, but it also allows a bit of strategy late game by giving points to objective snipers as well for an all out kill fest to hopefully gain an advantage.

Ozymandias wrote:Here's how most 4th ed games went.

"Ok, going to roll for mission"
"Ok, now going to roll for level"
"Crap, rolled Omega, wanna just play Gamma?"
"Sure, Omega sucks!"

or

"Crap, rolled Omega; well you win, grats on the game."

Ozymandias, King of Kings

And the same thing could be said of the new 'you only start with an HQ and two troops on the board' scenario in 5th.

Well, I found that lists such as IG and Necron (3 ed codices) have many problems especially in small point turnies against Mech anything. The missions really hose any player without new army books on a small board. My mech orks were in H2H in the second turn if not the first in every game I played on a 4 x 4 table. Even in a 2500 point game against IG on a normal table my nobz biker were in H2H 2nd turn and made almost a complete lap around the board killing an IG unit a turn. So, yes the missions do screw over some lists that are using 3rd ed books.

I think the most important thing is to agree to have fun. Most of the games we play in If it ends at turn 5 we wind who was the "winner" but then also tend to agree that, "In another turn things would change." We look at what we each have left, VP, and a slew of thing to find out "Who won the moral victory...Is it a victory if you only have one troop left and they have their HQ, HS, FA, and some Elites alive?"

For the most part I like what they did for 5ed missions compared to 4th. They seem to work better, but obviously there is a lot of room for improvements. I like the idea of objectives giving points each turn equal the the number of the turn.


Kill Points are questionable (and not just because i play IG!), there is just too many imbalances in kill points. Some armies simply have very cheap/expendable units that are horrible in kill point missions. So I would much rather go back to VP.


Hopefully the new scenario book will spice things up.

IMO If you change a couple things you can fix the problems you're bringing up. One is that who holds the objective is the one who has the marjority around it.

Meaning If I have 1 Tac Squad of marines contesteing an objective against 2 full squads of orks, It means the orks have the majority and therefore actually control the objective.

The other is a little tweak. Only Infantry should be allowed to capture or contest an objective. Most objectives are in terrain and more accessable, and defendable by infantry.

I've played a lot of missions for 5ed and 4ed. 4th always ended up just blowing the crap out of each other with no reguard to the terrain or objectives. I enjoy the 5ed missions better.

In our group we are trying out rolling for two missions. One for each Army. For example Marines roll Annihilation, Orks roll up seize ground. It has made for interesting games where each army is going and strategizing on how best to complete their mission as well as prevent the other army from accomplishing theirs.

just a thought..

skyth wrote:

And the same thing could be said of the new 'you only start with an HQ and two troops on the board' scenario in 5th.

Not really, your whole army comes in on the first turn. That's significantly different to the old 4th ed Escalation.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

I like the 5th edition missions. Objective based missions mean that you can sacrifice non scoring units if necessary which was not the case back in the 3rd and 4th edition.

The Capture and Control mission is very challenging and often I have had to play for a draw. Some armies such as daemonic hordes have a big advantage in this missions since they deep strike close to the enemy objective. Other armies can be designed to have a chance at winning this mission if they take units that can deep strike such as drop pods and terminators.

I do think kill points still need some work though. I understand this type of mission balances out with the objective based missions but I would like to see the amount of kill points allocated to each unit better reflect their importance in the game. Personally I think dedicated transports should not be able to contest objectives and this is my one gripe with the new missions, which had been fixed in 4th addition.

I like the three types of deployment but I have noticed that in some places DoW is not popular.

G

yakface wrote:an objective held on Turn 1 is worth 1 Point, but an objective held on Turn 7 is worth 7 points.

The only thing that potentially concerns me about it is it gives the player who goes 2nd a tremendous advantage

Keep in mind, in Apoc, you often start close with a tremendous amount of heavy firepower on the board. So going first can be a strong advantage if your army can take advantage of momentum.

I don't understand why Annihilation didn't make kill points more ratio/percentage based. If a guard army has 18 kill points and I kill 6 but my Salamanders only have 8 kill points and get 4 killed, then to my mind that shouldn't be a win for the Sallies they lost 50% of their KPs while the guard only lost 33%! Seems like an easy fix with math that's not too hard (even for Alessio)

Exactly!

chaplaingrabthar wrote:I don't understand why Annihilation didn't make kill points more ratio/percentage based. If a guard army has 18 kill points and I kill 6 but my Salamanders only have 8 kill points and get 4 killed, then to my mind that shouldn't be a win for the Sallies they lost 50% of their KPs while the guard only lost 33%! Seems like an easy fix with math that's not too hard (even for Alessio)

Why not also apply this logic to holding objectives, if army A has 2 scoring units at an Obj and army B has only 1 contesting shouldnt A keep the objective?

Pretty simple, if simple was ever the issue.

All Annihilation needs to do to fix things is to add each players remaining KPs to the KPs that they score.