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. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/08/27 10:43:04
Subject: Opening Up the Game: Ideas and Postulations
|
 |
Warp-Screaming Noise Marine
|
I can see what you mean, but that sort of thing does come up anyway. I just think having alternatives like that might encourage a little more of the slightly less "competitive" mindset the OP was talking about and perhaps a little more "cinematic" thought about the game.
You are right, it would make for a few horrible combinations of armies and missions, which would be a massive hurdle.
Didn't they used to say make an Attack/Defend FOC army, then roll for mission? So by having some different objectives you would still be encouraged to prepare for a few flexible options, keeping things closer to balanced?
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/08/27 12:24:40
Subject: Opening Up the Game: Ideas and Postulations
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
@Peregrine,
Comments are perfectly reasonable. Part of the difficulty I think that the OP is trying to address is that at the moment there is no real need to take different units.
So, different missions will help - agree that you will still get bad matchups, but I don't think it is possible to avoid that given the different strengths of each army. However, defender armies might need to defend several strongpoints - which would somewhat negate the supporting fire benefits. Also, if you made the attacker defender choice random - well that would help as well.
Re being able to see the units on the table, I know I need very little encouragement to buy a new unit - I recently bought stalkers and destroyers. The encouragement was because I knew I was actually going to get a chance to play the unit. So, provide the opportunity and many (not all) players will jump on the opportunity to model/paint something different (imo).
I think the combination of different missions and FOC to drive slightly different lists, which is what @op was saying, will provide the opportunity for some (not all) players in the league to do something different.
If the highly competitive players find another uber list (which, as you say, they will), change the mission/FOC.
@Op, have you considered mission specific rules? Here's another off the wall - a replacement reserves rule :
**
"Emergency Reserves" - Units placed in reserve must deploy within 6" (no scatter) of a unit which has suffered casualties and has called for assistance ("the Calling Unit"). Emergency Reserves must be used to support the Calling unit and may only shoot at or assault enemy units that have shot at the calling unit in the previous turn or are assaulting the Calling Unit.
Emergency Reserves may assault in the turn that they arrive.
If the Calling Unit is destroyed or falls back having suffered more than 50% casualties, the Emergency Reserve unit takes its place in the battle and operates normally from then on.
If the Calling unit wins a combat, or is not shot at for a turn (including being the target of Psychic Powers), the Emergency Unit is immediately removed from the Board and returns to Emergency Reserve.
Emergency Reserve Units may deploy using normal Reserve rules on turn 5 of each game.
**
My thinking is that mission tailored rules may be tailored to specifically address some army inconsistencies - as well as to provide another strategic/tactical problem to consider.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/08/27 19:53:38
Subject: Re:Opening Up the Game: Ideas and Postulations
|
 |
Tail-spinning Tomb Blade Pilot
|
@Slaanesh - I think you've inspired me to add an attacker/defender four set of missions to my to do list. It would take a good bit of work to even it out, but could be worth it if done well.
@MarkCron - That Emergency Reserves idea could be really interesting. I would alter it a bit, because as is it would be terrifying for an opponent playing an assault army! The idea is so fun though, I'm going to have think on it for a while!
|
DZC - Scourge
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2011/08/28 03:04:18
Subject: Opening Up the Game: Ideas and Postulations
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Damn you @Thokt, now I keep getting crazy ideas in my head!
Modification to Mysterious Objectives rule:
"Teleporter - During the Movement phase, Units wholly within 3" of the objective may teleport using Deep Strike rules. If the unit scatters onto dangerous or impassable terrain and would mishap as a result, reduce the scatter movement by the minimum amount required to prevent the mishap"
Here's an additional Emperor's Will objective rule - a contamination of the objective.
"Where did they go?" At the beginning of the movement phase of the controlling players turn roll a D6. On a roll of 1, all Models within 6 inches of the Emperors Will are teleported to a single location selected by the controlling player at least 24" away from the Emperors Will objective using deep strike rules.
Where a unit is split as a result of some of its models being teleported, the teleported models form a separate unit and operates normally.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/09/03 02:12:13
Subject: Re:Opening Up the Game: Ideas and Postulations
|
 |
Tail-spinning Tomb Blade Pilot
|
I stumbled across a thread that mentioned 2nd Edition Battle Mission cards? Does anyone know much about these? My google fu must be weak today.
|
DZC - Scourge
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/09/03 10:56:03
Subject: Opening Up the Game: Ideas and Postulations
|
 |
Shas'ui with Bonding Knife
|
Dakkamite wrote:I think zone control was the mainstay of older 40k editions. Most scoring units in any given table quarter = VP.
Please, please do not turn missions and objectives into "capture the geometry". Almost every other game's scenario / mission structure is some form of capture the geometry (meaning, pick a geometrical shape on the table, now come up with some stupid rules regarding this shape, like # of models that need to be in it, out of it, etc... and these somehow become win conditions).
This is why I stopped playing steamroller in warmachine. I got so tired of every mission being some variation of "capture the geometry".
While not perfect, at least 40k's mission structure lend itself to a structure that could be thought of as a mission for an army, which i kind of like. I"m not a huge narrative gamer, but it just lends more fun to the game if the scenario can be guised in something an army might actually do.
|
daedalus wrote:
I mean, it's Dakka. I thought snide arguments from emotion were what we did here.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/09/03 11:07:24
Subject: Opening Up the Game: Ideas and Postulations
|
 |
Foxy Wildborne
|
Haight wrote:
Please, please do not turn missions and objectives into "capture the geometry". Almost every other game's scenario / mission structure is some form of capture the geometry (meaning, pick a geometrical shape on the table, now come up with some stupid rules regarding this shape, like # of models that need to be in it, out of it, etc... and these somehow become win conditions).
This is why I stopped playing steamroller in warmachine. I got so tired of every mission being some variation of "capture the geometry".
While not perfect, at least 40k's mission structure lend itself to a structure that could be thought of as a mission for an army, which i kind of like. I"m not a huge narrative gamer, but it just lends more fun to the game if the scenario can be guised in something an army might actually do.
You know that a 40k objective is just the center point of a circle your dudes need to stand inside of to win, right?
|
The old meta is dead and the new meta struggles to be born. Now is the time of munchkins. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/09/03 18:28:18
Subject: Re:Opening Up the Game: Ideas and Postulations
|
 |
Tail-spinning Tomb Blade Pilot
|
@Haight
There's really not a lot of escaping the geometry aspect beyond kill points. Objectives are geometry as well. I don't find any more realism in the objectives than zone control, perhaps less. Don't forget that objectivesalso come with their own "dumb special rules" referred to as mysterious objectives.
In the end, you have nothing to worry about. I can play games however I like and it will have no effect on your own gaming experience.
|
DZC - Scourge
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/10/04 21:38:30
Subject: Re:Opening Up the Game: Ideas and Postulations
|
 |
Tail-spinning Tomb Blade Pilot
|
|
DZC - Scourge
|
|
 |
 |
|