Switch Theme:

How can mission design make 40K more strategic?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut






One observation about the missions in 9th edition is that the mission specific secondary's (which are optional) are actually the unique thing about each individual mission.

I almost wonder if there is a logic to making the mission-specific objective mandatory, reducing the points coming from holding normal control points, and then still let players pick 2 (or maybe 3) proper secondaries.

Want a better 40K?
Check out ProHammer 40k: Enhanced 5th Edition... for retro 40k feels!
 
   
Made in us
Mysterious Techpriest




As I said earlier, there is very little left to tune on primary scoring.

They are close to perfect thanks to a long testing phase. The reason 9th feels so much better than 8th is 90% due to how well they are designed.


Sure did miss some pretty big issues for something so "close to perfect". lol


The only change I could see is an additional turn of scoring for the second player at the end of turn 5, to offset the first turn advantage. Math shows that the difference between going first and going second is around 8 points, which is perfectly in line with an additional round of scoring.


That would be a good start, but I also think tweaking the layout and number of objectives in some of the missions would help as well.

Edit: I just googled ablutions and apparently it does not including dropping a duece. I should have looked it up early sorry for any confusion. - Baldsmug

Psiensis on the "good old days":
"Kids these days...
... I invented the 6th Ed meta back in 3rd ed.
Wait, what were we talking about again? Did I ever tell you about the time I gave you five bees for a quarter? That's what you'd say in those days, "give me five bees for a quarter", is what you'd say in those days. And you'd go down to the D&D shop, with an onion in your belt, 'cause that was the style of the time. So there I was in the D&D shop..." 
   
Made in ca
Mysterious Techpriest






Karol wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
Blastaar wrote:
...You seem to be assuming that the only missions that can exist are "sit here all game" and "kill stuff."...


How many objectives for any miniatures wargame aren't either "kill the thing", "have a unit here at a specific time", or "grab the flag and run away"?


For infinity it is a few, you have tower activation that pass on skill checks, you have specific missions for units like medics or engieers have missions of their own, you have hacking of different things.



Wouldn't it be more interesting if the hold objectives had a progresive points scaling? from what I see in games going first gives a huge adventage to a player and going last, makes your turn 5 practicaly worthless as taking objectives back goes, because there won't be your begining of turn 6 for you to actualy score them. So with models dieing all over the game, and holding and taking objectives being harder in turn 3-4, maybe holding something on turn 3-4 should give more points then holding it on turn 2, by sole virtue of having had first turn.


Another thing is double dipping objectives. My opponents shouldn't score a kill objective for killing my army and killing psykers at the same time. Because it turns the game in to a contest of who can give up secondaries worse, making armies that can give up 3 automaticly not realy worth playing.


yeah, infinity has really good missions that force you to diversify your list. And since theyre all "action" based and aren't guaranteed to suceed, it makes the game less lethal since sometimes you're gonna have to spend 2-3 orders simply to accomplish the objective. Its pretty great when compared to 40k (although i love the addition of actions)

Admech 5000
Drukhari 4000
2500
500
Imperial knights 1200

 
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba





my only problems with Infinity's objectives tends to be the added aspect of 'not guaranteed to succeed'. I hate that you often have only 1-2 models in a normal TAC list that are hackers or whatever that CAN do the action to score points, and then when you get them there and you spend the action points to do it, then...whoops, didn't roll high enough. Sorry loser, guess you rolled a 1 so you lose the mission.

I'd much prefer if they just have durations that are required to suceed.

"I can't believe all these tryhard WAACs out there just care about winning all the time when it's supposed to be a game for fun!!!!!!! Also here's my 27 page essay on why marines are OP and Orkz should get a bunch of OP rules so I can win more games

-the_scotsman"

-ERJAK 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







the_scotsman wrote:
my only problems with Infinity's objectives tends to be the added aspect of 'not guaranteed to succeed'. I hate that you often have only 1-2 models in a normal TAC list that are hackers or whatever that CAN do the action to score points, and then when you get them there and you spend the action points to do it, then...whoops, didn't roll high enough. Sorry loser, guess you rolled a 1 so you lose the mission.

I'd much prefer if they just have durations that are required to suceed.


It could be interesting if you hybridized the mechanics, maybe. Take a risk, roll the die, trust your skill and finish the action sooner, or simply "take 20" - a longer duration but guaranteed to succeed.
   
Made in us
Blood Angel Terminator with Lightning Claws



Sioux Falls, SD

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
my only problems with Infinity's objectives tends to be the added aspect of 'not guaranteed to succeed'. I hate that you often have only 1-2 models in a normal TAC list that are hackers or whatever that CAN do the action to score points, and then when you get them there and you spend the action points to do it, then...whoops, didn't roll high enough. Sorry loser, guess you rolled a 1 so you lose the mission.

I'd much prefer if they just have durations that are required to suceed.


It could be interesting if you hybridized the mechanics, maybe. Take a risk, roll the die, trust your skill and finish the action sooner, or simply "take 20" - a longer duration but guaranteed to succeed.


That would be a nice way to do it, this is the last turn I have to do it now, so just roll it or you know you have 3 turns to do it and just being sure it will happen.

Blood for the bloo... wait no, I meant for Sanguinius!  
   
Made in ca
Mysterious Techpriest






 Unit1126PLL wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
my only problems with Infinity's objectives tends to be the added aspect of 'not guaranteed to succeed'. I hate that you often have only 1-2 models in a normal TAC list that are hackers or whatever that CAN do the action to score points, and then when you get them there and you spend the action points to do it, then...whoops, didn't roll high enough. Sorry loser, guess you rolled a 1 so you lose the mission.

I'd much prefer if they just have durations that are required to suceed.


It could be interesting if you hybridized the mechanics, maybe. Take a risk, roll the die, trust your skill and finish the action sooner, or simply "take 20" - a longer duration but guaranteed to succeed.


Solid suggestion, that way you'd have more agency over the "order economy" mid-game. So if you'd attempt to activate the console without being under threat from enemy fire you'd take the slow option, otherwise you'd have a chance to roll to get it instantly.

i'm still not sold that having a chance to fail is a bad thing. It forces you to take the right unit for the job. You wouldn't send a basic fusilier to hack into an antenna when you have an actual hacker in your team. That doesnt mean the fusilier couldnt do it at all, just that he'd be slower at it.

Admech 5000
Drukhari 4000
2500
500
Imperial knights 1200

 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

 morganfreeman wrote:
Simply put, the current objectives are simple but also do encourage choices and playing around. Do you rush mid field and hold them, or do you wait it out?


According to Goonhammer's stats, the latter approach is a losing proposition. You either get to midfield objectives ASAP or you can't recover. And it's bad enough that even if you want to rush midfield, if you go second you have a significantly lower chance of winning. Armies that can't effectively contest objectives when they go second have abysmal win rates.

There's really not a lot of choice there.
   
Made in us
Mysterious Techpriest




It could be interesting if you hybridized the mechanics, maybe. Take a risk, roll the die, trust your skill and finish the action sooner, or simply "take 20" - a longer duration but guaranteed to succeed.


Love this!

Edit: I just googled ablutions and apparently it does not including dropping a duece. I should have looked it up early sorry for any confusion. - Baldsmug

Psiensis on the "good old days":
"Kids these days...
... I invented the 6th Ed meta back in 3rd ed.
Wait, what were we talking about again? Did I ever tell you about the time I gave you five bees for a quarter? That's what you'd say in those days, "give me five bees for a quarter", is what you'd say in those days. And you'd go down to the D&D shop, with an onion in your belt, 'cause that was the style of the time. So there I was in the D&D shop..." 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut






So part of why I started this thread was because I'm interesting in building out my set of missions to use in ProHammer - and I think I'm going to start with 9th edition with some modifications based on what I've heard here. I'm also interested in how the permutations of missions can be made unique.

In closely reviewing the 9th edition missions, I don't see any reason why the deployment zone, # and placement of objective markers, and the secondary object can't be independently determined/rolled for and then combined - allowing for a lot of nuance.

You can roll for deployment, then roll for the objective maker layout. This layout would be adapted based on the deployment map - and I think adding in some flexiblity (e.g. markers can be placed with 6" or 9" of their indicated spot) would be good to let the objectives conform to the terrain in a more plausible way. From there, you can roll for the secondary objective and add additional objective markers if needed.

I'm thinking that I may make the mission secondary mandatory and perhaps worth more potential points, and scale the points and scoring for the primary objectives base on game round.

I may just do-away with the other secondary objectives entirely - or adapt them into a list that works better with ProHammer. Has there been any other lists of secondary objectives that work better than what's in the 9th edition rules?

Want a better 40K?
Check out ProHammer 40k: Enhanced 5th Edition... for retro 40k feels!
 
   
Made in pl
Longtime Dakkanaut




TheAvengingKnee 793989 10988862 wrote:

That would be a nice way to do it, this is the last turn I have to do it now, so just roll it or you know you have 3 turns to do it and just being sure it will happen.


Or you could do something, and I am pulling numbers out of a hat here, lets say objective X gives d3VP if you roll, but you can get an auto 2, if you do something specific. Like lets say some sort of data harvest mission could be done by anyone, but if you use a version of your factions tech guy you could just auto get 2VP, and then it could be further modified with maybe your army are the IT guys and the dude doing the whole objective is a Master of a Forge or some special character.

There could also be some small characterful interactions. Like if you have a mission to use a consol to block out communication someone like an eldar banshee, Jaina or a noise marine could do it really good..

A destroy a bio target objective could be done by everyone for , again pulling the numbers out of thing air here, the 3-6VP or some sort of random roll, but some units or even gear could buff. it DG could be really good at doing this objective, but maybe having a flamer also gives you a +1 to the roll.

Although those ideas are probably good only for games with 20-30 models top.

If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




 Unit1126PLL wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
my only problems with Infinity's objectives tends to be the added aspect of 'not guaranteed to succeed'. I hate that you often have only 1-2 models in a normal TAC list that are hackers or whatever that CAN do the action to score points, and then when you get them there and you spend the action points to do it, then...whoops, didn't roll high enough. Sorry loser, guess you rolled a 1 so you lose the mission.

I'd much prefer if they just have durations that are required to suceed.


It could be interesting if you hybridized the mechanics, maybe. Take a risk, roll the die, trust your skill and finish the action sooner, or simply "take 20" - a longer duration but guaranteed to succeed.


A similar mechanic could be choosing when to 'cash out' on an objective. The longer you control before cashing out, the more points you gain. If you're cleared off before you cash out - you get nothing. You're guaranteed to succeed unless you make the conscious choice of saying that you can hold this objective until next turn.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: