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.

Allow me to play devil's advocate here and ask why is it that 40k is the only game in which the scenario is different every round? I get that it's to sort of keep players from tailoring their lists for the mission, but isn't the point of a tournament is to test your ability at adapting against other players? So if you want a true test of list vs list, wouldn't it be more consistent to hand a list of POSSIBLE scenarios, but choose only one on the game day? Switching scenarios make sense if you play the same guy in a best of X series, but if you're fighting different people each round, why not just stick to one mission?

Other tabletop wargames use and rotate different missions in tournaments quite frequently. Dropzone Commander, Flames of War, etc

Some of it is about allowing different armies to use different strengths, some of it is purely for its own sake, and some of it is because people dont want to play literally the exact same thing all day.

Edit: Tournaments also arent purely tests of skill, theyre events to highlight and drive the game and show off how cool everything is, and using multiple missions helps that.

Because it's boring. Doing new missions is fun because it's not repetitive. Why is this a thread?

Wow, salty much? Yeah it's not the most interesting, but that's not perfectly reflective of who's the best player is it? You don't see sports switching it up between rugby, soccer, and american football for the same athletes, but against different teams each time? Even LoL doesn't change things around. Like I said, I think it works better for if you're doing a best of series against the same player like in Starcraft or Counter Strike. It might make more sense for 40k if you allowed players a sideboard to switch out units to fit the scenario better.

 NInjatactiks wrote:
Wow, salty much? Yeah it's not the most interesting, but that's not perfectly reflective of who's the best player is it? You don't see sports switching it up between rugby, soccer, and american football for the same athletes, but against different teams each time? Even LoL doesn't change things around. Like I said, I think it works better for if you're doing a best of series against the same player like in Starcraft or Counter Strike. It might make more sense for 40k if you allowed players a sideboard to switch out units to fit the scenario better.

So salty.

Sports don't have the same randomness 40k does, same with LoL. Everything's pretty laid out, same with Starcraft and Counter Strike. Besides, imagine doing a best of 3 for each round of 40k, it'd take a week to finish.

So yeah, switching missions is more fun, and adds another layer of randomness to 40k. It also encourages people to bring a "Take all comers" list, as who knows what the mission parameters will be. It's also more reflective of a real war, as each battle would have different objectives, rather than completely the same.

Go play Warmachine if you want constant missions, Warmachine matches are usually pretty static (i.e. 6 or so missions with little variety between them).

Because 40k, like many games, has units/lists that are better at some things than at others. For example, a MSU list will be really good at objective missions because it has so many scoring units, but will struggle with kill point missions because it has tons of easy to kill units. Playing different missions requires you to make an army that is capable of handling a wide range of possible situations instead of optimizing for one specific mission at the expense of all else. This is also one of the reasons why a sideboard is a bad idea, it takes away the challenge of making a good TAC list when you can swap in mission-specific units each game.