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.

Hello Everyone.

Posting missions for review and critique for a potential event.

What would you suggest for ties?

Mission 1 “The Darkness scares me Sarge”
Deployment Type: Dawn of War
Game Length: 5 Turns, random game length
Objective: Kill Points
· 5 Points: Most kill points, Ties broken by Victory Points
· 2 Points: Opponents most expensive unit destroyed or fleeing
· 1 Point: Opponents HQ destroyed or fleeing


Mission 2 “Are VP’s better than KP’s?”
Deployment Type: Pitched Battle
Game Length: 5 Turns, random game length
Objective: Victory Points
· 5 Points: Most Victory points, ties broken by KP's
· 2 Points: Scoring unit in opponent’s deployment zone
· 1 Point: Your opponent’s heavy choices are destroyed or fleeing

Mission 3 “King of the hills”
Deployment Type: Spearhead
Game Length: 5 Turns, random game length
Objective: Objectives (2 Objectives per player, one in each Deployment Zone, one in each no man’s land. Objectives must be placed 12” from an objective or table edge)
· 5 Points: Control more objectives that your opponent ties broken by kill points
· 2 Points: Earn 5 or more kill points
· 1 Point: Your opponent’s fast attack choices are destroyed or fleeing

Mission 4 “I dare you to cross this line…”
Deployment Type: Pitched Battle
Game Length: 5 Turns, random game length
Objective: Objectives (2 per player, place objectives in no man’s land, 12'' from an objective or 6'' from table edge)
· 5 Points: Control more objectives that your opponent ties broken by kill points
· 2 Points: Scoring unit in opponent’s deployment zone
· 1 Point: Your opponent’s Elite choices are destroyed or fleeing

Mission 5 “Goals Not Guns”
Deployment Type: Diagonal one
Game Length: 5 Turns, random game length
Objective: Victory Conditions, each player has 3 objective tokens. One token is placed on their table edge the other 2 are placed in their opponents half of the table.
Victory Condition 1. Control 3 Objectives on your table half
Victory Condition 2. More kill points than your opponent
Victory Condition 3. Control objective on your opponent’s table edge
Victory Condition 4. Control 2 objectives on your opponents table half
Victory Condition 5. Opponents HQ destroyed or Fleeing
· 5 Points: Player with the most Victory conditions
· 2 Points: Scoring unit in opponent’s deployment zone
· 1 Point: Control a table quarter

Hey Dave,
There may be a few small changes that may be needed, but overall they are fine.

In mission #5 "Goals Not Guns" - The diagonal deployment is called Spearhead.
The objective placement is a bit strange on this one. We are deploying in table quarters, however the first objective has to be placed on our table edge. Does that mean within our table quarter, or on the long table edge? Also, in your other 4 missions you have points awarded for each victory objective, however in this one you just listed 5 victory conditions. So, I'm not sure how that is awarded...

From a quick glance, that was really all that I found and otherwise these look pretty simple to understand and play.

Wolflord Patrick wrote:In mission #5 "Goals Not Guns" - The diagonal deployment is called Spearhead.

No, he obviously knows Spearhead (see mission #3). I expect he's talking about that 4e triangular deployment (come in 18" from each corner & draw in the triangle).

Janthkin wrote:

Wolflord Patrick wrote:In mission #5 "Goals Not Guns" - The diagonal deployment is called Spearhead.

No, he obviously knows Spearhead (see mission #3). I expect he's talking about that 4e triangular deployment (come in 18" from each corner & draw in the triangle).

Hmmm, my bad then... I'm not sure if I've seen that type of deployment.

Wolflord Patrick wrote:
Also, in your other 4 missions you have points awarded for each victory objective, however in this one you just listed 5 victory conditions. So, I'm not sure how that is awarded...

Hey Pat, thank you for the feedback.

For mission 5 each victory condition is basically an objective. Which ever player has a majority of the conditions wins the primary.

These look oddly familiar

You know I like them Dave. Also I understand the 5th mission is for those that like to deviate a little more from the core-style missions and I think it does it quite well.

I like all the goals except the "All <insert FOC choice> are destroyed or fleeing." I've seen sour grapes from these when they are 1 plus or minus point out of a possible 20 -- making them an 8th of the total battle points could be problematic.

Also interesting that there's no odd number of objectives in the missions. Not a big deal really, just interesting.

Finally, two missions in a row that are for the most part just beat up on the other guy. I think these P/S/T missions work best when there's a variety of goal types in each game at play. Also variety while in a tournament helps also, so if they retained the annihilation flavor perhaps splitting them up would be better.

I like them. My only critiques: have secondary objectives not be similar to primary objectives. For example: in kill points, have objectives or table quarters for secondary objectives.

For objective missions, have kill points or VPs as secondary.

If you have primary as KP and secondary as essentially bonus KPs for killing certain units, then it doesn't require the players to do anything other than what they are already doing.

Lastly, the bonus for wiping out a certain FOC can get sticky as what do you do when someone has nothing in a certain FOC? Auto points or do they not have the opportunity to get the points? Both are funky.

Other than that, I think they look awesome, well done! I will add anything else I can think of.

Secondary Objectives
I agree with Reecius and Winterman about the secondary objectives. Obviously if someone doesn't have the targeted Force Org it has to be automatic points. Everyone needs to have the chance of scoring the same total number of points, regardless of opponent's army list.

Also, regarding having a unit in the opponent's DZ, you need to clarify whether the whole unit has to be in, or a majority of it, or whether any part of the unit counts.

Same for the quadrant one; you'll need to clarify the above, and also say whether a non-scoring unit can contest a quadrant (like it can an objective), or whether only a scoring unit can hold OR contest (which I'd recommend).

Deployment
If you are using the old Cleanse II triangular DZs, be sure to put a little diagram on the mission sheet showing how to measure them. Also, I've see people assume that they have to pick one of the two corners pictured, so be sure to use phrasing which clarifies that you can base your DZ off any of the four.

KP/VP/Objective balance
Overall though, they look pretty tight, and nice and simple. They are a bit skewed in favor of MSU, however. VPs favor MSU, and high number of objectives missions favor MSU.

The objective missions in the book average 3 objectives. 2 in Cap & Control, and an average of 4 in Seize Ground. You've got two 4 objective missions and a 6, but no 2s. That's an average of 4.7; significantly above the normal balance with the book missions. If you just swap one of the 4 objective missions with a Cap & Control (2 objectives), you'd get the average where it's supposed to be among the objective missions.

Of course, that still leaves you with a VP mission, and only 20% KP missions (well, 24% with mission 5). :/ How about you make the secondary objective for mission 4 be KPs, bump "scoring unit in enemy DZ" down to the tertiary objective and just lose the "kill elites" one?*

That'll leave you with KPs as just one of the primaries, but also as two of the secondaries. Also, clarify that in mission 2, a VP differential of under 10% of the game point level (so 185 if it's an 1850 tournament) is a draw, to make the KP tiebreaker meaningful.

*You could move the "kill elites" tertiary to mission 5 if you really want to keep it, for symmetry. Dropping the holding a quadrant one would also save you having to clarify all the stuff about holding quadrants too.

Hope this helps!

I want to thank Reece, Mannahnin and Winterman for their analysis.
Below are the revised missions based on everyone’s feedback changes in bold.

Definitions:

Objective Marker: 40mm round base.

Control a table quarter: Scoring unit in a table quarter not contested by an opponent’s unit. If a unit is partially in multiple quarters, it is considered in whatever quarter contains a majority of the unit; if no quarter contains a majority, randomly determine which quarter it is in.

Control an objective: A scoring unit must be within 3” of its edge. If an enemy unit is also within 3” its edge the objective is contested. When determining if an objective is held or contested, ignore all terrain/model heights.
Unit in opponent’s deployment zone: A majority of a scoring unit in opponent’s deployment zone.

Opponents <FOC> destroyed or fleeing: If your opponent does not have the required <FOC> force organization chart choice then you are automatically awarded the point.


Mission 1 “The Darkness scares me Sarge”
Deployment Type: Dawn of War
Game Length: 5 Turns, random game length
Objective: Kill Points
• 5 Points: Most kill points, Ties broken by Victory Points
• 2 Points: Scoring unit in your opponents deployment table half
• 1 Point: Control a table quarter

Mission 2 “King of the hills”
Deployment Type: Spearhead
Game Length: 5 Turns, random game length
Objective: Objectives (2 Objectives per player, one in each Deployment Zone, one in each no man’s land. Objectives must be placed 12” from an objective or table edge)
• 5 Points: Control more objectives that your opponent ties broken by kill points
• 2 Points: Earn 5 or more kill points
• 1 Point: Your opponent’s fast attack choices are destroyed or fleeing

Mission 3 “I dare you to cross this line…”
Deployment Type: Pitched Battle
Game Length: 5 Turns, random game length
Objective: Capture and Control (2 objectives one in each deployment zone)
• 5 Points: Control more objectives that your opponent ties broken by kill points
• 2 Points: Earn 5 or more kill points
• 1 Point: Your opponent’s Elite choices are destroyed or fleeing

Mission 4 “Are VP’s better than KP’s?”
Deployment Type: Pitched Battle
Game Length: 5 Turns, random game length
Objective: Victory Points
• 5 Points: >200 Victory points than your opponent, ties broken by KP's
• 2 Points: Scoring unit in opponent’s deployment zone
• 1 Point: Control a table quarter

Mission 5 “Goals Not Guns”
Deployment Type: Diagonal one
Game Length: 5 Turns, random game length
Objective: Victory Conditions, each player has 3 objective tokens. One token is placed on their table edge the other 2 are placed in their opponents half of the table.
Victory Condition 1. Control 3 Objectives on your table half
Victory Condition 2. More kill points than your opponent
Victory Condition 3. Control objective on your opponent’s table edge
Victory Condition 4. Control 2 objectives on your opponents table half
Victory Condition 5. Opponents HQ choices destroyed or Fleeing
• 5 Points: Player with the most Victory conditions
• 2 Points: Scoring unit in opponent’s deployment zone
• 1 Point: Your opponent’s Heavy choices are destroyed or fleeing

Again, thank you for the feedback and review.

Looking really solid! I would love to play these missions at a tournament.

Quick question:

Control a table quarter: Scoring unit in a table quarter not contested by an opponent’s unit.

This is still a little ambiguous. Is a NON-scoring unit supposed to be able to contest or not? I think it can, based on this, but I'm not 100%.

If you want only scoring units to control or contest, I'd say "an opponent's scoring unit"; if you want non-scoring units to contest, you can make that clearer by writing "not contested by ANY opponent's unit", (or, grammatically better, "...by ANY of your opponent's units.")

This may be a little naive but... when you state <FOC choice> be destroyed or fleeing do you mean all of them (if applicable), any of them, or per choice? For instance if I have 3 FA units does my opponent need to destroy/route all 3 of my units to score his points or does he get points each time he destroys/routes one of my units or does he get the points if he destroys/routes just 1 of my units?
Sorry if this is a simplistic question but if I'm confused maybe someone else is as well.

@Leo
Yeah, you have to destroy all of the units in the specified FOC slots. So, if you have 3 Vendettas in your IG list, I would have to destroy all 3 to get the bonus.

@Dave
Well done! I think they look excellent! Nice mix of missions to not favor any one type of army, and I like seeing VPs in there, too. I think that is better than 2 KP missions, personally.

Lastly, define the diagonal deployment zones, which I am sure you would have done, but just in case you forgot I thought I'd bring it up.
IIRC, it was 18" in from the short and long table edge for each player. I really like this deployment, I am glad to see it make a comeback.

Mission 2 “King of the hills”
Deployment Type: Spearhead
Game Length: 5 Turns, random game length
Objective: Objectives (2 Objectives per player, one in each Deployment Zone, one in each no man’s land. Objectives must be placed 12” from an objective or table edge[i][u])
• 5 Points: Control more objectives that your opponent ties broken by kill points
• 2 Points: Earn 5 or more kill points
• 1 Point: Your opponent’s fast attack choices are destroyed or fleeing

I think you may want to set this one up and check those measurement requirements for the objectives to insure they are feasible. With table quarter deployment and the board edges as a restriction to objective deployment you could end up with some very difficult to place objectives and some players may abuse that to their advantage.

That leaves 2'x1' per quarter. That's a decent amount of space in a zone to put an 40mm round objective. Not to different than normal except that he's restricting it to one per quarter.

But there is a limited amount of space in which to place the No-Mans land objectives. If a wise player places his no man's land objective first, up against the center of the board after his opponent placed his normal objective near the 12 inch no man's land line then he is effectively going to nullify his opponents ability to place one in no-mans land on his side. I believe it is possible, with out saying the no-mans land objectives must be placed first, to effectively make it impossible for a player to place an objective in his own no-mans land. I worked it out on the floor a few minutes ago and it is indeed possible. It would take a lot of fore thought and TFG type behavior but it is indeed possible.

I wouldn't mind doing these missions. Where I used to play they mostly just coughed up whatever was in the rulebooks. Got kind of boring. I would love to see these missions in action.

I think it is always better if you make all the objectives exclusive to one player.

For example, kill all the opponets Fast attack and still have your own fast attack alive.

This encourages non cooperative play.

If there is no disadvantage to me for my opponent killing my fast attack and if
I have the game in hand, I may play in such a way that it is easy for my opponent to kill my fast attack.