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.

Need... regiment... plastics...

Aduro wrote:My early prediction, based on nothing, is that the book will have two missions specific to every army except Marines and Guard, who will have At Least three each or some other kind of shared Imperial missions so they end up with more than everyone else.

I'll guess maybe 6 generic Attacker/Defender missions. Another 6 symmetrical missions that might be suitable for tournament running. For fun, they'll also throw in 6 different types of Deployment Zones you can use in the missions.

And hopefully not a single Kill Point between them.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Aduro wrote:My early prediction, based on nothing, is that the book will have two missions specific to every army except Marines and Guard, who will have At Least three each or some other kind of shared Imperial missions so they end up with more than everyone else.

I'll guess maybe 6 generic Attacker/Defender missions. Another 6 symmetrical missions that might be suitable for tournament running. For fun, they'll also throw in 6 different types of Deployment Zones you can use in the missions.

And hopefully not a single Kill Point between them.

Agreed that current kill point system is a joke.

I wouldn't mind a more sensible and updated Kill point system as one possible victory condition type (though I prefer scenario victory conditions):

I think kill points should be based upon blocks of 50. A model 50pts. or less is worth .5KP. 51-100 1KP, etc. Thus it isnt as black or white and the KP you earn are based upon the value of the unit in question. A Land Raider becomes a 2.5KP target, etc.

a flat 1KP for every unit was just lazy.

Then again if the scenario system in the rulebook was solid gold then GW would not have sold as much Apoc, Planetstrike and now Battle Missions...

Say it with me folks: "KP's balance Objective based missions."

With a set of non-standard missions, I don't see why they would need KP's. I'm willing to bet that like Planetstrike, a lot of these new missions will advise building an army specifically for that game.

Looks nice. The local group will probably buy at least one copy. Here's hoping the new SM stuff includes a Master of the Forge with Conversion Beamer!

I got a book of missions made by Dice Like Thunder a couple months back and finally got around to reading the thing the other day. In it, you get KPs for what you kill And what you have left. I haven't played with it yet, but it seems like it could help balance out the armies better maybe.

Otherwise I'm sure the new book will have some form of KP missions in there. It will probably have the same 3 missions in the the rule book included in the 6 symmetrical missions.

Definitely hoping for some new symmetric missions that could start to make their way into occasional tournaments for some variety. I've never been a huge fan of missions with different objectives for different sides, or giving either side an advantage/disadvantage, but new stuff is never bad.

And asymmetric missions might be a great way to help newer players get some real playtesting against more experienced hands without the discouragement of either outright slaughter or patronization.

And for the love of god, no all-nightfight missions.

Tournament play should not have asymmetric missions, some armies would just get killed through no fault of their own. Maybe if the missions are known in advance but it would still probably be unfair.

Just one all night-fight missions would be ok. As long as you plan for it it might be fun.

BrookM wrote:Those Tallarn green were test sculpts of sorts IIRC.

And hence perfect as a "collectors" release as part of the Battle Missions range!

Vale,

JohnS

Hmm...

A GW Blight Drone would be nice.

Am I right?

Anyway, cool, new stuff is alwasy fun to follow.

Ozymandias wrote:Say it with me folks: "KP's balance Objective based missions."

Maybe if KP's weren't inherently unbalanced, that'd be true. And MSU was never a problem in 3rd or 4th. It only became an 'issue' when KP's showed up and everyone used it as a way of justifying a horribly broken victory point system (especially when the previous VP system was 100% balanced).

Ozymandias wrote:Tournament play should not have asymmetric missions, some armies would just get killed through no fault of their own. Maybe if the missions are known in advance but it would still probably be unfair.

Depends what you mean by asymmetric missions.

There are two ways of doing it:

1. Attacker/Defender - The 'advanced' missions from the various rulebooks, stuff like Breakout, Meatgrinder, etc.
2. Differing but not mutually exclusive objectives - Rules of Engagement/2nd Ed style missions, where both players had an objective that was different, but not opposed (ie. if you were after their commander, their mission wasn't automatically to protect their commander).

The first, you're right, should never show up at a tournament (especially not with armies like Codex: Non-Generic Daemons running about). The latter, I'm not so sure.

H.B.M.C. wrote:
2. Differing but not mutually exclusive objectives - Rules of Engagement/2nd Ed style missions, where both players had an objective that was different, but not opposed (ie. if you were after their commander, their mission wasn't automatically to protect their commander).

Aaaah the good 'ol days...

2nd edition mission and strategy cards was so fun. The game of 40K felt like an event then with both players having their own mission and employing strategy cards and allocating wargear cards, etc.

Dark Millenium FTW.

It was also time intensive.

I do like the throw back to that time with the recent use of stratagems, etc. Anything that makes 40k less "vanilla" from one game to the next...

other than a re-cut chimera/bassilisk and russ with variants, anybody have any idea as to what is coming out? Maybe of course the LotD and possibly a re-cut of the razorback w/ weapon options for marines and some death koptas for Orks and storm troops for the Imp Guard possibly?

CT GAMER wrote:Anything that makes 40k less "vanilla" from one game to the next...

Well I actually think that's the point. GW isn't one to admit a mistake - ever - and usually if they find a problem with something their solution is simply to release a new product (5th Ed was an apology for 4th and presumably 6th will their way of apologising for 5th).

5th Ed has 3 missions... and I think that most people have played them to death. Varying deployment zones/styles can only go so far and the amount of people that simply hate KP's is staggering. Plus, when you factor in the reception that Apoc and PS has received I think that they see their solution to the stale...ness... of 5th Ed is to release a new product with heaps of missions to give us more variety.

So it's money for them and missions for us - win/win if you ask me.

There was an objective and missions system printed in WD during late 3rd/ early 4th edition. I found that worked pretty well- not foolproof- but better than "Cleanse".
For those that missed it, it consisted of varying missions, such as 'bridgehead' or 'hold at all costs' in which you had to defend your own two objectives, hold one of yours and one of the enemy's, or just hold the enemy's.

I've been using this as a framework in 5th, and its worked as well as it used too; the real beauty is that both players have a separate mission, which is kept secret, so you as a commander have to complete your own mission, then figure out and deny your opponents!

IMO it brought across what it is to be a battlefield commander a lot better than just "capture all objectives".

I used those missions a lot too. I believe it is the same missions that H.B.M.C refers to.

One of the things I liked about 2nd Edition were the non-symmetrical missions (ie, My Goals are different than Your Goals). I'd like to see some of those kind of missions.

I also wonder how many of the missions will be tailored to incorporate all the nifty items that GW has released as of late like the mission "The Fort" in US WD #359 which gave you an excuse to buy an Indomitable fortress for use in 40K even if you don't play Planetstrike, etc., etc.

Will we see missions like the old strongpoint attack mission, but that detail the use of things like Bastions and skyshields and defense guns, etc.?

Will we see a "taking down the giant" type scenario in which a standard 40K force attempts to take out a lone super heavy (like the stompa vs. enemy army scenario back in the Stompa issues)?

I guess I wonder how much this book will be a solid scenario system and how much it will be a marketing tool to sell other kits?

I hope it is solid in and of itself.

Lorek wrote:One of the things I liked about 2nd Edition were the non-symmetrical missions (ie, My Goals are different than Your Goals). I'd like to see some of those kind of missions.

Yes!

Definitely one of the better things from 2nd edition that should make a comeback.

I also like the 'secret' aspect of missions, as it tends to be a bit more 'realistic' (Yes! I know...) and, for me, more 'fun'.

Maybe if KP's weren't inherently unbalanced,

Not sure I get you there so I would love to see you expound on that.

I remember reading something about this book and if memory serves correctly the missions in this book will be very "themed" based so not sure how well they will fit into a tourny style game. Some of the missions will be a little one sided.

Alpharius wrote:

Lorek wrote:One of the things I liked about 2nd Edition were the non-symmetrical missions (ie, My Goals are different than Your Goals). I'd like to see some of those kind of missions.

Yes!

Definitely one of the better things from 2nd edition that should make a comeback.

I also like the 'secret' aspect of missions, as it tends to be a bit more 'realistic' (Yes! I know...) and, for me, more 'fun'.

Kind of like how "Hunt the Fallen" was for Dark Angels codex? Every freakin game had a mini-mission. Was tons of fun.

I'd be lying if I said this didn't make me squeal in joy like a little girl.

And two of the factions that're confirmed for new minis are factions I play. It's like an extra christmas gift from GW

Steelmage99 wrote:I used those missions a lot too. I believe it is the same missions that H.B.M.C refers to.

Yup. The 'Rules of Engagement' they were called.

And here they are for anyone who's interested.

H.B.M.C. wrote:And here they are for anyone who's interested.

Thanks for that. Not seen them before.

+1 to what UltraPrime just said.

I'd nerf these to bring them back to 5th edition standard rules:

1. Only troops control objectives. You contest by proximity, not by # of models in range.
2. I don't like the alternating deployment of troops (Each an HQ, and so forth).
3. It says that all games last 6 turns. I like the current random game length of 5-7 turns.

Yeah keep in mind that these weren't written for 5th and were from a time where what could score wasn't arbitrary.

kronk wrote:+1 to what UltraPrime just said.

I'd nerf these to bring them back to 5th edition standard rules:

1. Only troops control objectives. You contest by proximity, not by # of models in range.
2. I don't like the alternating deployment of troops (Each an HQ, and so forth).
3. It says that all games last 6 turns. I like the current random game length of 5-7 turns.

Yup, thats what I'm going to do. Got a PE campaign prepped for the hols, so will be using these!

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Ozymandias wrote:Say it with me folks: "KP's balance Objective based missions."

Maybe if KP's weren't inherently unbalanced, that'd be true. And MSU was never a problem in 3rd or 4th. It only became an 'issue' when KP's showed up and everyone used it as a way of justifying a horribly broken victory point system (especially when the previous VP system was 100% balanced).

You must have played a very different version of 3rd ed to me. I remember lots of 6man las-plas squads followed by land speeders or empty rhinos rushing into each of the quarters in turn 6. MSU was definitely the order of the day.

BrookM wrote:Those Tallarn green were test sculpts of sorts IIRC.

Some people down at a hobby store were talking to each other about this. Apparently the guard are getting new Tallarn, Mordian and Valhallan kit, as well as a new basilisk and if I recall correctly a new chimera. I think I may be wrong about the last one though. And they might be completely wrong
Anywho, really looking forward to this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

combatmedic wrote:

Alpharius wrote:

Lorek wrote:One of the things I liked about 2nd Edition were the non-symmetrical missions (ie, My Goals are different than Your Goals). I'd like to see some of those kind of missions.

Yes!

Definitely one of the better things from 2nd edition that should make a comeback.

I also like the 'secret' aspect of missions, as it tends to be a bit more 'realistic' (Yes! I know...) and, for me, more 'fun'.

Kind of like how "Hunt the Fallen" was for Dark Angels codex? Every freakin game had a mini-mission. Was tons of fun.

I remember buying so many DA vet boxes and chaos mutation packs to convert fallen . And I got Cypher, because he's awesome.

karimabuseer wrote:

BrookM wrote:Those Tallarn green were test sculpts of sorts IIRC.

Some people down at a hobby store were talking to each other about this. Apparently the guard are getting new Tallarn, Mordian and Valhallan kit, as well as a new basilisk and if I recall correctly a new chimera. I think I may be wrong about the last one though. And they might be completely wrong
Anywho, really looking forward to this.

Hopefully those IG units show up, that would be groovy. There is a thread over at warseer that shows pics of the new chimera and russ chasis as well as some words about it here

http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=200118