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.

 the_scotsman wrote:

Rihgu wrote:

 the_scotsman wrote:
Right, not like the creative mission design from fourth thru seventh where the mission design was:

1) 4 objectives around the board, whoever holds more at the end of the game wins

2) 1 objective in each DZ, whoever holds more at the end of the game wins

3) whoever kills more units at the end of the game wins

Yes but you see, at least any deployment zone could be used with any mission! And you would, you would roll to see which deployment type you used (and if you ever rolled the diagonal one you'd re-roll, until you got either short or long)

Every day I become more convinced that the nostalgia crowd is just nostalgic for playing in a group that would aim their creativity at designing missions, where the goal was to create as close and even a battle as possible, and now they play the game by making lists where the goal is the most powerful list possible and they do nothing to alter any of the rules, have bad games and get mad.

I remember in 5th playing what was effectively a pickup game with a friend where we decided, based on the terrain we had, that a certain part of the board had a weird psychic anomaly happening. My opponent's Dark Eldar wanted to see it happen because lol why not, and my Grey Knights wanted to shut it down because Emperor's Tarot yadda yadda bad Daemons.
We quickly discovered that a mission where a raider full of incubi needed to merely move and unleash on some hapless GK defending a location is not very well balanced but hey it was a fun half hour.

Queue playing a Narrative Campaign in 8th with the same friend who railed against the custom mission I had designed (basically get the explorator in a freshly-activated Necron tomb and get it back to the table edge while tomb defense systems attacked your units + the enemy also wanted said explorator) because it was unbalanced.

Sigh.

Tycho wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 oni wrote:
Negative.

The game has lost its heart & soul.

The game has been overrun by tourney-hammer design which hinders experimentation and stifles creativity for an unachievable ideology called "balance".

The mission design is downright pathetic. They're so bland. There's no creativity behind them. It's a broken record repeating the same game over and over and over.

This feels like the most overt "it changed so it sucks" take I've seen.

The biggest change to missions was making them less kill focused which arguably fits the lore better since territory control, resource gain/denial, and resource recovery are the reason 40k has so many ground wars instead of just glassing the enemy from orbit.

And anything you play over and over again is going to feel repetetive. That's how repetition works.

I don't think that's necessarily fair. Older editions did have a lot more "tactical depth" (for 40k anyway, simulation fans need not @me) than the current edition, and 8th and 9th DO have a lot of CCG style in-game power ups and combos that feel a bit "arcade-like" for lack of a better term that I can see not being appealing to some. Additionally, the missions for 9th are based on actual tournament style systems, so if you don't like that kind of play, I can see not feeling positive towards the edition. Sure, at that point it's on you to work out what style to play instead, and the tools are there for that, but I don't see that post as being as bad as you feel it was.

I never said anything about tactical depth. I was talking about narrative depth.

 oni wrote:
Negative.

The game has lost its heart & soul.

The game has been overrun by tourney-hammer design which hinders experimentation and stifles creativity for an unachievable ideology called "balance".

Possibly true of Matched play, which is one third of what GW gave you, yet is strangely the only thing anyone cares about, despite the fact that another third of what GW gave you would solve many of the problems.

 oni wrote:
Negative.
The mission design is downright pathetic. They're so bland. There's no creativity behind them. It's a broken record repeating the same game over and over and over.

Because Missions are only part of the game, since neither secondaries nor agendas are contained in the mission rules. I won't speak about secondaries specifically as I don't play matched and others can do it more intelligently than I, but most agendas in dexes are interesting and fluffy, and many involve battlefield actions and some are completely de-coupled from and exist in dynamic tension with objectives.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Tycho wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 oni wrote:
Negative.

The game has lost its heart & soul.

The game has been overrun by tourney-hammer design which hinders experimentation and stifles creativity for an unachievable ideology called "balance".

The mission design is downright pathetic. They're so bland. There's no creativity behind them. It's a broken record repeating the same game over and over and over.

This feels like the most overt "it changed so it sucks" take I've seen.

The biggest change to missions was making them less kill focused which arguably fits the lore better since territory control, resource gain/denial, and resource recovery are the reason 40k has so many ground wars instead of just glassing the enemy from orbit.

And anything you play over and over again is going to feel repetetive. That's how repetition works.

I don't think that's necessarily fair. Older editions did have a lot more "tactical depth" (for 40k anyway, simulation fans need not @me) than the current edition, and 8th and 9th DO have a lot of CCG style in-game power ups and combos that feel a bit "arcade-like" for lack of a better term that I can see not being appealing to some. Additionally, the missions for 9th are based on actual tournament style systems, so if you don't like that kind of play, I can see not feeling positive towards the edition. Sure, at that point it's on you to work out what style to play instead, and the tools are there for that, but I don't see that post as being as bad as you feel it was.

I never said anything about tactical depth. I was talking about narrative depth.

I don't see anything about "narrative" depth in your post. It seemed aimed at tactics but fair enough if I misunderstood you. It still feels a bit harsh. The post you were responding to wasn't one of those "RAAAARGH! One unit in my army changed ever so slightly and now my army is invalidated, so feth GW" kind of posts. Seemed like a reasonable take to me.

I talked about how the missions fit the lore better. How is that not narrative?

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I talked about how the missions fit the lore better. How is that not narrative?

Like I said, I didn't see it.

I did miss that.

edit

9th edition missions are boring. They accomplish what they try but are repetitive and boring.

But no warhammer game has had ever any "fun" mission, at least not the ones used in any kind of competitive or tournament play.

I remember fantasy, editions and editions of just pitched battles and to kill each other. And TBH in a game like that, it was appropiate. But still, became quite repetitive.

 Galas wrote:
9th edition missions are boring. They accomplish what they try but are repetitive and boring.

But no warhammer game has had ever any "fun" mission, at least not the ones used in any kind of competitive or tournament play.

I remember fantash, editions and editions of just pitched battles and to kill each other. And TBH in a game like that, it was appropiate. But still, became quite repetitive.

I feel like the missions aren't the problem, it's the repetition that kills the fun.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Galas wrote:
9th edition missions are boring. They accomplish what they try but are repetitive and boring.

But no warhammer game has had ever any "fun" mission, at least not the ones used in any kind of competitive or tournament play.

I remember fantash, editions and editions of just pitched battles and to kill each other. And TBH in a game like that, it was appropiate. But still, became quite repetitive.

I feel like the missions aren't the problem, it's the repetition that kills the fun.

Well, the missions are designed with competitive play in mind, and competitive players like consistent win conditions. So, you get repetition.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Galas wrote:
9th edition missions are boring. They accomplish what they try but are repetitive and boring.

But no warhammer game has had ever any "fun" mission, at least not the ones used in any kind of competitive or tournament play.

I remember fantash, editions and editions of just pitched battles and to kill each other. And TBH in a game like that, it was appropiate. But still, became quite repetitive.

I feel like the missions aren't the problem, it's the repetition that kills the fun.

Well, the missions are designed with competitive play in mind, and competitive players like consistent win conditions. So, you get repetition.

I won't disagree with that. I'm just saying that the base game getting played to death is more the issue than the design of the missions.

Which reminds me, did Plague War or Book of Rust add narrative missions? I have yet to look at those books.

 the_scotsman wrote:

Rihgu wrote:

 the_scotsman wrote:
Right, not like the creative mission design from fourth thru seventh where the mission design was:

1) 4 objectives around the board, whoever holds more at the end of the game wins

2) 1 objective in each DZ, whoever holds more at the end of the game wins

3) whoever kills more units at the end of the game wins

Yes but you see, at least any deployment zone could be used with any mission! And you would, you would roll to see which deployment type you used (and if you ever rolled the diagonal one you'd re-roll, until you got either short or long)

Every day I become more convinced that the nostalgia crowd is just nostalgic for playing in a group that would aim their creativity at designing missions, where the goal was to create as close and even a battle as possible, and now they play the game by making lists where the goal is the most powerful list possible and they do nothing to alter any of the rules, have bad games and get mad.

This is a weird post because its implying that the older players changed, rather than the focus of the newer players changing to a more static rules set because its what convenient. Theres more FLGSs around now, meaning more games with strangers which is why you'd want the convenience of a static rule set whereas nostalgial players generally played with friends at each others houses (or Garagehammer), which made it easy to agree and play house rules.

The thing about the current mission pack is that they're one dimensional. Everyone will always select the same secondary objectives that their army is best suited to achieve. And because you can always select the same Secondary Objectives every time, you can evaluate and formulate during army construction to better accomplish them. Hence why so many people say that the game is won during the "list building phase". There is no mechanic to force the players to consider a victory condition that hasn't been premeditated.

I like the 8th edition missions the best. Particularly the Eternal War and Maelstrom of War missions. And they were all getting refined and very good towards the end of 8th's life cycle via Chapter Approved.

A primary reason why the 8th edition missions are great is that you did not know what the victory condition would be going into the game. This forced players to consider ALL options and assemble an army that was more diversified.
Another reason the 8th edition Eternal War missions are great is that both players are working towards a common victory condition.
With the 9th edition missions the game feels disjointed because you're each working towards different goals. This can really cut down on counter play. The 9th edition missions actually remove critical thinking and tactical depth from the game because the armies become somewhat autonomous; always working to achieve the same objectives each and every time.

 oni wrote:

Another reason the 8th edition Eternal War missions are great is that both players are working towards a common victory condition.
With the 9th edition missions the game feels disjointed because you're each working towards different goals. This can really cut down on counter play. The 9th edition missions actually remove critical thinking and tactical depth from the game because the armies become somewhat autonomous; always working to achieve the same objectives each and every time.

Hard disagree. Asymmetric objectives do the exact opposite in general, they promote counterplay that isn't simply "try harder to achieve your main goal". When both players shoot for the same goal, you just have to do that thing better than the other side. With asymmetry, you have to think about achieving yours and also partitioning some forces to harry and disrupt the other guy from achieving theirs. Tension between these factors allows for interesting play. 40k doesn't do that in any particularily commendable fashion, but that isn't really the objectives' fault.

I do agree with your point about the less predictable missions being preferable, though. Loved the later CA's of 8th.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 the_scotsman wrote:

Rihgu wrote:

 the_scotsman wrote:
Right, not like the creative mission design from fourth thru seventh where the mission design was:

1) 4 objectives around the board, whoever holds more at the end of the game wins

2) 1 objective in each DZ, whoever holds more at the end of the game wins

3) whoever kills more units at the end of the game wins

Yes but you see, at least any deployment zone could be used with any mission! And you would, you would roll to see which deployment type you used (and if you ever rolled the diagonal one you'd re-roll, until you got either short or long)

Every day I become more convinced that the nostalgia crowd is just nostalgic for playing in a group that would aim their creativity at designing missions, where the goal was to create as close and even a battle as possible, and now they play the game by making lists where the goal is the most powerful list possible and they do nothing to alter any of the rules, have bad games and get mad.

This is a weird post because its implying that the older players changed, rather than the focus of the newer players changing to a more static rules set because its what convenient. Theres more FLGSs around now, meaning more games with strangers which is why you'd want the convenience of a static rule set whereas nostalgial players generally played with friends at each others houses (or Garagehammer), which made it easy to agree and play house rules.

Mostly what im accusing the nostalgia crowd of is going to pickup games at a store and having a bad time when what they used to do was play a small group of friends.

Why not play with a small group of likeminded folks?

I think that it is interesting that only 40% are positive on the game, according to this poll at this time. Dakka has some reputation, but the people here all are here because they love or loved something... I was brought in by people who loved what they were doing and wouldn’t have stayed if 60% of the fans I met were nostalgic for better days or suspicious of bloat in the form of supplement spam or gamey weirdness. Likeminded folks. That is the majority, if also counting the neutral “meh” voters. Nah, I might have stayed into Man o War, but skipped 40k if that were the atmosphere.

 ClockworkZion wrote:


Which reminds me, did Plague War or Book of Rust add narrative
missions? I have yet to look at those books.

The 3 Missions in the BoR are fairly narrative in nature, but there are only 3. There are also some ideas and suggestions about how to fit them into the provided campaign structure (these parts are very vague and loose; it's obvious they did this because they didn't want to trap players into a my-way or the highway campaign system, but I felt they should have offered more guidance). Strangely, there is more Crusade content in the BoR than there is in Plague Purge, which was billed as a Crusade Mission pack. Beyond the veil was far better than Plague Purge, but even it was a bit light.

I find the WD Flashpoints to actually be one of the better sources for Narrative content. Each includes three theatres of war- these aren't missions- they modify missions. But there's also a narrative overview of multiple battles in each Theatre. There's also usually a short story, and they throw in a few relics as prizes. When you combine these with the BoR, you get a really fulsome campaign.

I was sure I started a thread where I laid out a full 30 game campaign arc for Charadon combining missions with theatres and the campaign system, but I can't find it anywhere. There are a near infinite number of combinations- no two BoR campaigns will ever be the same if you actually use all the content. But as other's have pointed out, the weakness is that if you only use a single source, you don't really get the whole thing.

 the_scotsman wrote:
Right, not like the creative mission design from fourth thru seventh where the mission design was:

And you left out 8th, which had tons of missions, with the CA books adding lots more with some very cool victory conditions.

Then there's 9th, with its variation on 4-8 objectives, and totally symmetrical combat.

The 9th missions are too similar to one another, it's not even so much just the having six as that all six are just basic variations on the exact same theme (maybe two themes, at a bit stretch). They really blew an opportunity by just recycling them with literally no changes for the new CA book.

The next big step in improving 40k mission design is finding some way to make missions at least slightly dynamic and/or variable, so that playing the same mission with the same armies isn't exactly the same every time.

yukishiro1 wrote:
The 9th missions are too similar to one another, it's not even so much just the having six as that all six are just basic variations on the exact same theme (maybe two themes, at a bit stretch). They really blew an opportunity by just recycling them with literally no changes for the new CA book.

The next big step in improving 40k mission design is finding some way to make missions at least slightly dynamic and/or variable, so that playing the same mission with the same armies isn't exactly the same every time.

Welcome to competitive play!

And I'm not even being snarky there. For competitive to find balance it has to blanch variance out of it in favor of skill. Best way to do that is to make the missions a lot less variable.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
The 9th missions are too similar to one another, it's not even so much just the having six as that all six are just basic variations on the exact same theme (maybe two themes, at a bit stretch). They really blew an opportunity by just recycling them with literally no changes for the new CA book.

The next big step in improving 40k mission design is finding some way to make missions at least slightly dynamic and/or variable, so that playing the same mission with the same armies isn't exactly the same every time.

Welcome to competitive play!

And I'm not even being snarky there. For competitive to find balance it has to blanch variance out of it in favor of skill. Best way to do that is to make the missions a lot less variable.

Yes, but some might consider that boring, or, "repetitive".

Which is a shame, as it means you lose out on dynamic missions like, say, Lockdown, which was easily my fav from CA2019.

Open war deck gives you all the variety you need. The variance in missions/objectives/etc is great...unless you want the unobtainable "balance".

But that goes against S.O.P. for competitive focused players.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 the_scotsman wrote:
Right, not like the creative mission design from fourth thru seventh where the mission design was:

And you left out 8th, which had tons of missions, with the CA books adding lots more with some very cool victory conditions.

Then there's 9th, with its variation on 4-8 objectives, and totally symmetrical combat.

Eh. When GW decided to get more "creative" with the 8e missions they did things like making a king of the hill objective that turned Invulnerable saves off if you got anywhere near it. I'm all for more variance in mission design, but I don't think 8e is a great example to hold up here.

Really, terrain should be creating enough variance in the basic missions.
I think it’s a huge 40k issue here with that.
Enabling them to put effort into some really good alternative missions as well.

But I also think the competitive scene is one of the worst around for player driven content. They seem intent to strangle any fun out of the missions sometimes.
And tournament packs and missions are part of game design.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
The 9th missions are too similar to one another, it's not even so much just the having six as that all six are just basic variations on the exact same theme (maybe two themes, at a bit stretch). They really blew an opportunity by just recycling them with literally no changes for the new CA book.

The next big step in improving 40k mission design is finding some way to make missions at least slightly dynamic and/or variable, so that playing the same mission with the same armies isn't exactly the same every time.

Welcome to competitive play!

And I'm not even being snarky there. For competitive to find balance it has to blanch variance out of it in favor of skill. Best way to do that is to make the missions a lot less variable.

Yes, but some might consider that boring, or, "repetitive".

Which has been my point. It's a side effect of GW pushing matched play to be the more competitive play experience. I asked about the missions for the campaign supplements because I'm hoping they put the more interesting missions there. Like the old Meatgrinder that put the defender in the middle for a set number of turns and gave the attacker a lower number of points but infinitely respawning units.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
The 9th missions are too similar to one another, it's not even so much just the having six as that all six are just basic variations on the exact same theme (maybe two themes, at a bit stretch). They really blew an opportunity by just recycling them with literally no changes for the new CA book.

The next big step in improving 40k mission design is finding some way to make missions at least slightly dynamic and/or variable, so that playing the same mission with the same armies isn't exactly the same every time.

Welcome to competitive play!

And I'm not even being snarky there. For competitive to find balance it has to blanch variance out of it in favor of skill. Best way to do that is to make the missions a lot less variable.

No, that's absolutely not how competitive play works. If that were true, we'd have only one mission, because that is the easiest to balance. Competitive play is certainly about balance, but it's also about variety, because ability to cope with different situations is a test of skill just as much as ability to execute perfectly on an unchanging set of victory conditions is a test of skill. The game wouldn't be better competitively with only one mission, it would be worse.

yukishiro1 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
The 9th missions are too similar to one another, it's not even so much just the having six as that all six are just basic variations on the exact same theme (maybe two themes, at a bit stretch). They really blew an opportunity by just recycling them with literally no changes for the new CA book.

The next big step in improving 40k mission design is finding some way to make missions at least slightly dynamic and/or variable, so that playing the same mission with the same armies isn't exactly the same every time.

Welcome to competitive play!

And I'm not even being snarky there. For competitive to find balance it has to blanch variance out of it in favor of skill. Best way to do that is to make the missions a lot less variable.

No, that's absolutely not how competitive play works. If that were true, we'd have only one mission, because that is the most balanced of all. Competitive play is certainly about balance, but it's also about variety, because ability to cope with different situations is a test of skill just as much as ability to executive perfectly on an unchanging set of victory conditions is a test of skill.

I think the only reason they tried to have a variety of missions is because we don't have one play style across all armies, so a variety gives a fairer shake across the board.

...if you just keep going with that thought a bit further...

yukishiro1 wrote:
...if you just keep going with that thought a bit further...

Point is that the missions are less randomly generated than the old ones because it evens the playing field. They more than likely worked with Reese and the ITC people to try and pick a good mix of missions that are balanced between both players but give a reasonable amount of variety for different playstyles to make the game more skill focused but not driving it down one particular play style.

That said, it's repetive when you boil down the game to so few mission types and then play them over and over with no change to deployment zones.