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, I think we can all agree that "stand on objectives in L shaped ruins" isn't exactly the greatest for enjoyable repetitive gameplay. I understand why it exists in terms of balancing competitive play, but I got to thinking today about a system that could potentially replace it, but still be somewhat balanced. I'm curious about your thoughts and wanted to know what system you would design for it.

My idea is that each faction would have a set of Core Missions, 3 at least, but potentially 6, each to allow for easy randomization, and will retain the secondary system pretty much as is, though they would be built around each faction as well. At the start of each match, players would randomly determine the mission (or for tournaments, perhaps you could choose, but couldn't repeat options until you've done them all?) that they are on, which would not match what their opponent is doing.

For example, a Chaos player could get Ritual where they have to secure the center of the board and protect it while they perform a ritual, whereas an Admech player could have a primary objective to find a lost pieces of technology on the battlefield and return them to their deployment zone. Both would be working to achieve their own objectives when trying to prevent their opponent from doing theirs, but they would not be the same objectives.

Having the secondary missions tied to specific factions would make for far more dynamic versions as well as you could have ones tied to thematic things for the various armies as well. For instance, you could have an Emperor's Children one be to initiate an Epic Challenge and the points given could scale up based on how effective that challenge was (something that you couldn't have as a general one because armies like T'au just wouldn't be able to do it.) (Or for simplicities sake, it could be have a character damage another character in melee.)

Overall, I think this would be good for game balance too as if an army is performing too well, in addition to the points changes currently available, GW could actually tweak their missions specifically to adjust how easy it is for them to score points in general. (The Deployment Maps and Twists can probably remain as is for how those are handled.)

This should lead to a far more dynamic matchup system where every game feels different, while still keeping things reasonably well balanced.

Thoughts?

A while back when playing around with a 'simplehammer' system the game was mostly 5e style objectives but the reward for holding them before the end was that specific units (dismounted troops and squads led by characters) could plant a single bonus on an uncontested objective.

Small stuff mostly like reinforcing the cover (+1 cover saves) or mines (one shot damage to friend or foe), digging in (against charges), etc.

Only one bonus at a time and most benefitted the enemy if they took the objective (as well as non-scoring units that moved up).

There were also more powerful two-turn / faction specific bonuses that your opponent could interrupt more easily such as the daemonhunters 'ritual of reconsecration' taken directly from their apoc formation.

Mostly stuff to encourage take and hold rather than last turn steal, though it was never finished.

My first reaction is that since there's over 20 factions in 40k giving them bespoke missions means making dozens and dozens. Which seems impractical.

Sure you could I guess double up, but that's going to invite issues if some factions get the "easier" objectives.

I'm sort of mixed really. I agree that the game as it stands is a bit repetitive after many years. But I also think it works. It's far better "as a game" than the missions of 5th-7th. I'd be concerned big changes would throw the baby out with the bathwater. Balancing by missions, much like when we had bespoke secondaries, is incredibly difficult to get right.

I wouldn't mind GW maybe experimenting to see how it goes with a bigger play test, but I'd be concerned about "standard" 40k going that way.

Eh, I think its honestly just fine. It doesn't SOUND interesting, but it doesn't get in the way of gameplay and forces engagement which is the real objective. The secondaries often provide more of the narrative style elements.

Like, ultimately scenarios are only as narratively engaging as you make them. MCP has missions where you grab magic hammers and defuse unstable alien tech before it explodes that the competitive community boils down to "standing in a spot to score points". Malifaux and Infinity are two of the more narratively driven games that aren't campaign driven and still can be broken down to a very mechanical interaction.

I just don't really think mechanically complicated scenarios work very well. They mostly just get in the way and turn into finding ways to manipulate and exploit them rather than feel like you're really engaged with the game.

Isn’t that more or less how Agendas work in Crusade, which is instead of secondaries?

I like the idea of asymmetric missions. Each player picks their mission, perhaps without knowing what the other player has picked, and then tries to achieve their objective.

It'd probably not be that suitable for tournaments, stuff like killing the enemy leader is obviously a lot harder if the leader is a Hive Tyrant than a Guard command squad, but I think the asymmetric missions of older editions were some of the most fun I've had playing the game.

 Da Boss wrote:
I like the idea of asymmetric missions. Each player picks their mission, perhaps without knowing what the other player has picked, and then tries to achieve their objective.

It'd probably not be that suitable for tournaments, stuff like killing the enemy leader is obviously a lot harder if the leader is a Hive Tyrant than a Guard command squad, but I think the asymmetric missions of older editions were some of the most fun I've had playing the game.

FWIW, the latest mission pack has a set of asymmetrical primary missions. They don't get played in tournaments but should absolutely see table time if you're looking for something different.

I think rolling for random secondaries is bad design for competitive play, good for casual play, to me the narrative comes second to gameplay for misison design purposes. Missions should punish spamming a specific unit type like all vehicles or all infantry in an even way, so not making vehicles awful in one mission and awesome in the next, but making vehicle spam pretty bad in every mission and infantry spam pretty bad in every mission. The exception would be singular narrative missions designed for something like vehicle combat.

 Tawnis wrote:
So, I think we can all agree that "stand on objectives in L shaped ruins" isn't exactly the greatest for enjoyable repetitive gameplay.

I think characterising 10th competitive missions this way is silly, the L-shaped ruins aren't very necessary either since it takes very little to make decent terrain compared to previously where true line of sight was all that mattered. Whether you use lots of tiny little terrain pieces or bigger round ones, it's all pretty good. What L-shaped ruins and start of turn scoring in open areas allows for is a back-and-forth trading game instead of the traditional snowball which is only about who can alpha strike harder. I don't know what the greatest is, but it definitely isn't kill points (which discourages small/mobile/stealthy units) or all end of game missions (which encourages gunlines which never commit anything).

My idea is that each faction would have a set of Core Missions, 3 at least, but potentially 6, each to allow for easy randomization, and will retain the secondary system pretty much as is, though they would be built around each faction as well. At the start of each match, players would randomly determine the mission (or for tournaments, perhaps you could choose, but couldn't repeat options until you've done them all?) that they are on, which would not match what their opponent is doing.

Is that so different from factions have different secondaries? In 8th and 9th each faction had unique secondaries, they were not very flavourful to me with the exception of Purge the Vermin and caused big balance problems as some of them were too easy. If Necrons are good or bad only because they have easy/hard missions, Necrons points costs are out of whack outside GW's newest competitive missions. Is it more flavourful if missions are entirely assymetric instead of symetric primaries and assymetric secondaries? I can see a host of issues with allowing a faction to get max points on primaries without ever fighting for objectives. I guess I never really played a mission where everything clicked narratively from 5th-10th, they all felt gamey to me.

CODE OF COMBAT

PURGE THE VERMIN

ANCIENT MACHINERIES



Automatically Appended Next Post:
I think rolling for random secondaries is bad design for competitive play, good for casual play. I think missions should punish spamming a specific unit type like all vehicles or all infantry in an even way, so not making vehicles awful in one mission and awesome in the next, but making vehicle spam pretty bad in every mission and infantry spam pretty bad in every mission. The exception would be singular narrative missions designed for something like vehicle combat.

 Tawnis wrote:
So, I think we can all agree that "stand on objectives in L shaped ruins" isn't exactly the greatest for enjoyable repetitive gameplay.

I think characterising 10th competitive missions this way is silly, the L-shaped ruins aren't very necessary either since it takes very little to make decent terrain compared to previously where true line of sight was all that mattered. I don't know what the greatest is, but it definitely isn't kill points (which discourages small/mobile/stealthy units) or all end of game missions (which encourages gunlines which never commit anything).

My idea is that each faction would have a set of Core Missions, 3 at least, but potentially 6, each to allow for easy randomization, and will retain the secondary system pretty much as is, though they would be built around each faction as well. At the start of each match, players would randomly determine the mission (or for tournaments, perhaps you could choose, but couldn't repeat options until you've done them all?) that they are on, which would not match what their opponent is doing.

Is that so different from factions have different secondaries? In 8th and 9th each faction had unique secondaries, they were not very flavourful to me with the exception of Purge the Vermin and caused big balance problems as some of them were too easy. If Necrons are good or bad only because they have easy/hard missions, Necrons points costs are out of whack outside GW's newest competitive missions.

CODE OF COMBAT
End Game Objective
Though the Necron nobility view even the mightiest of their foes as little more than barbarous beasts, still many seek to uphold the Triarchal codes by affording their enemies an honourable death.

Score 3 victory points at the end of the battle for each enemy unit that was destroyed by a NECRONS NOBLE unit from your army.

PURGE THE VERMIN
Progressive Objective
This territory is infested by the contemptible vermin of the lesser races. They must be driven wholesale from the Necrons’ rightful lands in order for reclamation to commence.

Score 2 victory points at the end of your turn for each table quarter that does not have any enemy units (excluding AIRCRAFT units) wholly within it. This objective cannot be scored in the first battle round.

ANCIENT MACHINERIES
Progressive Objective
Countless worlds across the galaxy harbour quiescent Necron technology, buried beneath the surface or mistaken for mere xenoarchaeological ruins. As the Necron conquest of the galaxy gathers pace, so they seek to rouse these strange engines to wakefulness and - in so doing - reclaim the worlds upon which they languish.

If you selected this secondary objective, then after both sides have finished deploying, starting with your opponent, the players alternate selecting objective markers that are not within any player’s deployment zone to be Ancient Machinery objective markers, until three objective markers have been selected (if there are only one or two such objective markers, then only those objective markers are Ancient Machinery objective markers).

NECRONS CORE or NECRONS CANOPTEK units from your army can attempt the following action:

Awaken Ancient Machinery (Action): At the end of your Movement phase, one or more NECRONS CORE or NECRONS CANOPTEK units from your army can start to perform this action. Each unit from your army that starts to perform this action must be in range of a different Ancient Machinery objective marker. A unit cannot start this action while there are any enemy units (excluding AIRCRAFT) in range of the same objective marker. The action is completed at the end of your next Command phase, provided the unit attempting that action is still within range of that Ancient Machinery objective marker.

Score 3 victory points each time a unit from your army completes the Awaken Ancient Machinery action.

Lord Zarkov wrote:
Isn’t that more or less how Agendas work in Crusade, which is instead of secondaries?

Yes my friend, and thank you for thinking kindly of Crusade.

The other very important thing about Agendas though is that they pay out Experience Points, NOT Victory Points. I personally see this as one of the coolest elements of the Crusade system- there are incentives to do other things in battle than pursue single-minded mission victory. I believe that dichotomy builds a dynamic narrative where the old cliche about losing a battle in order win a war comes to life.

Unfortunately, it doesn't work for standalone games.

Your point, however, is taken: If they can make four Agendas for each faction, they could probably make a couple missions for each faction. It may even be possible for an Agenda to ALSO function as a bespoke secondary, offering VP in Matched play instead of XP in Crusade.

Honestly, I'd reframe the question a bit. I think the current matched player/tournament rules are doing pretty much exactly what the designers want. We can leave that going on the same course.

What I want is a more narrative format that's more approachable than Crusade and *isn't* as concerned with balance as the current matched play rules. Something along the lines of the Crusade asymmetrical missions, but without the prerequisite piles of paper work, negotiation with a bunch of potential opponents, and inevitable balance issues stemming from battle honors that come with Crusade.

Give me some fluffy rules that clearly convey a narrative and can be easily played as part of a pickup game. Where the balance isn't as good as a tournament game's, but that's okay because neither player should be out for blood in the first place.

EDIT: So in other words, I'd probably be looking at a version of the Crusade missions that isn't tied to a greater Crusade campaign system, and maybe some Battle Missions (5th edition) style games for people who want some missions more tailored to their particular army's fluff.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
Honestly, I'd reframe the question a bit. I think the current matched player/tournament rules are doing pretty much exactly what the designers want. We can leave that going on the same course.

What I want is a more narrative format that's more approachable than Crusade and *isn't* as concerned with balance as the current matched play rules. Something along the lines of the Crusade asymmetrical missions, but without the prerequisite piles of paper work, negotiation with a bunch of potential opponents, and inevitable balance issues stemming from battle honors that come with Crusade.

Give me some fluffy rules that clearly convey a narrative and can be easily played as part of a pickup game. Where the balance isn't as good as a tournament game's, but that's okay because neither player should be out for blood in the first place.

EDIT: So in other words, I'd probably be looking at a version of the Crusade missions that isn't tied to a greater Crusade campaign system, and maybe some Battle Missions (5th edition) style games for people who want some missions more tailored to their particular army's fluff.

You can honestly play the Crusade missions as one offs. They're really not at all dependent on leveling to function, though they are definitely a little hit or miss in terms of exploitability, they can still be played through to tell the story the book is trying to tell.

The other option is to put some framing around the tournament scenarios. Give you table some backstory, design your terrain with some place behind it, make some objective markers that are meaningful to your army, etc. You can actually put quite a lot of story around any game and you can even mix in things like the Asymmetrical missions to add to the story. Maybe the winner of this game will get the intel that gets them to the Mcguffin first that makes them the Defender in the Asymmetrical mission you agree to play next. Maybe this game uncovers the location of the losers home base and lets them be the Attacker. The best storytelling comes out organically of the events of the game and its really how willing you are to follow up to make that happen.

All good advice!

The thing that holds me up when I consider running crusade missions on their own is that the primary missions tend to feel too easy to dogpile/go all in on without some sort of secondary/agenda to keep part of each army busy. And while agendas are usually very fluffy, they also tend to tie into the greater Crusade mechanics, which doesn't really translate in a one-shot game.

 Tawnis wrote:
So, I think we can all agree that "stand on objectives in L shaped ruins" isn't exactly the greatest for enjoyable repetitive gameplay. I understand why it exists in terms of balancing competitive play, but I got to thinking today about a system that could potentially replace it, but still be somewhat balanced. I'm curious about your thoughts and wanted to know what system you would design for it.

My idea is that each faction would have a set of Core Missions, 3 at least, but potentially 6, each to allow for easy randomization, and will retain the secondary system pretty much as is, though they would be built around each faction as well. At the start of each match, players would randomly determine the mission (or for tournaments, perhaps you could choose, but couldn't repeat options until you've done them all?) that they are on, which would not match what their opponent is doing.

For example, a Chaos player could get Ritual where they have to secure the center of the board and protect it while they perform a ritual, whereas an Admech player could have a primary objective to find a lost pieces of technology on the battlefield and return them to their deployment zone. Both would be working to achieve their own objectives when trying to prevent their opponent from doing theirs, but they would not be the same objectives.

Having the secondary missions tied to specific factions would make for far more dynamic versions as well as you could have ones tied to thematic things for the various armies as well. For instance, you could have an Emperor's Children one be to initiate an Epic Challenge and the points given could scale up based on how effective that challenge was (something that you couldn't have as a general one because armies like T'au just wouldn't be able to do it.) (Or for simplicities sake, it could be have a character damage another character in melee.)

Overall, I think this would be good for game balance too as if an army is performing too well, in addition to the points changes currently available, GW could actually tweak their missions specifically to adjust how easy it is for them to score points in general. (The Deployment Maps and Twists can probably remain as is for how those are handled.)

This should lead to a far more dynamic matchup system where every game feels different, while still keeping things reasonably well balanced.

Thoughts?

I'd make it two tiered. One Tier that rewards "generic" builds. The ones that used to be 3 Troops, 1 FA, 1HS, etc. So you might get a secondary objective that says Purge the Heretic: Kill a psyer (1 for 1VP, 3 for 3VP, all of them for 5VP) If there are already zero get 5VP. This obviously doesn't quite work now that Terminators led by a Terminator Librarian are also psykers, and Tau/Black Templars/etc don't have psykers and shouldn't be "punished" for not taking what they're not allowed, but this was just for the theme. It also backfires if they have 15 psykers you have to kill for merely 5VP, The second tier (i.e. pick A Secondary or B Secondary listed on the same card) then deals with theme lists like the 15 Psyker Thousand Sons or the 40 Terminator Dark Angels, the 20 bike White Scars etc. Its possible the player has to pick the keyword covered by the card I don't know. But I'd use the secondary missions to reward/punish army creation.