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.

So in our gaming group we are discussing if we should standardize our gaming nights. Maelstorm seems a bit luck based and even we don't play ITC, we like the fixed missions and terrain..

Wha are your thoughts on the following:

CA - 19 mission Crusade with the following add ons:
- No prisoners.
- Dominance.

This would make us create a standard terrain for both, but with roll for deployment type. Then you would have the basic linebreaker, first strike and slay the warlord. You score 1vp for every objective from T2 onwards you control at the start of your turn. In addition you get 1vp every turn if you killed more or hold more.

Balanced to make it standard competitive format? Or are there factions which would suffer too much?

Xirax wrote:
So in our gaming group we are discussing if we should standardize our gaming nights. Maelstorm seems a bit luck based and even we don't play ITC, we like the fixed missions and terrain..

Wha are your thoughts on the following:

CA - 19 mission Crusade with the following add ons:
- No prisoners.
- Dominance.

This would make us create a standard terrain for both, but with roll for deployment type. Then you would have the basic linebreaker, first strike and slay the warlord. You score 1vp for every objective from T2 onwards you control at the start of your turn. In addition you get 1vp every turn if you killed more or hold more.

Balanced to make it standard competitive format? Or are there factions which would suffer too much?

There are factions that will rise and factions that fall no single mission can stop this, it does seem like a reasonable scenario though. Can I ask how many points you play?

Hmm, mostly 1,5k with occasional 1k/2k, but maybe 80% of time 1,5k so we can finish 3 games/eve. 2k games aren't beerhammer for us if you want to play many games. One thing we like too is to finish off the eve with a 2v2, those are usually epic, not as comp as one on one though. And if we have a price, it's always singles anyway.

Xirax wrote:
Hmm, mostly 1,5k with occasional 1k/2k, but maybe 80% of time 1,5k so we can finish 3 games/eve. 2k games aren't beerhammer for us if you want to play many games. One thing we like too is to finish off the eve with a 2v2, those are usually epic, not as comp as one on one though. And if we have a price, it's always singles anyway.

Alright, that's very reasonable!

My suggestion would be to have a second mission that's *very* different to this one and play both. That way, you have to think about lists more

What would be your pick for the 2nd mission or can we just make one more layer to the mission above like from T2 onwards you score a VP if you have more units in the enemy deployment zone.. "breach" at the the start of turn (t2 onwards) you gain a VP if you have more units in the enemy deployment than your opponent.

All these above missions try to give lil' edge on going 2nd.

If anyone have any custom games which have proven good, please tell.

Xirax wrote:
What would be your pick for the 2nd mission or can we just make one more layer to the mission above like from T2 onwards you score a VP if you have more units in the enemy deployment zone.. "breach" at the the start of turn (t2 onwards) you gain a VP if you have more units in the enemy deployment than your opponent.

All these above missions try to give lil' edge on going 2nd.

If anyone have any custom games which have proven good, please tell.

Well... I would always recommend a balanced Cities of Death/Urban Conquest style scenario that you've made your own(or just left as is), it would depend a bit on what terrain you have available. It's a different game to regular 40k and may end up taking too long because of that, but that's kind of the point...

Other than that, it's something your group should decide. It should just favour a different game plan.