Switch Theme:

Highlander Mission pack Rough Draft  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
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.




Made in us
Rotting Sorcerer of Nurgle






Jacksonville, NC

Howdy all,

So I've decided to begin battle repping some stuff besides ITC, and I felt that Highlander would be fun and unique! So I've taken it upon myself to build a mission packet... I didn't really embelish much on the story plot, I'm more concerned with the scoring and missions; I took some ITC influence, Warzone Atlanta, and even the book and ETC. I wanted each mission to be unique, and not just a "well this mission has 3 objectives instead of 6".

Please feel free to give feedback; I need it! And hell... if you wanna play test this some be my guest Thanks in advance!
 Filename Highlander.docx [Disk] Download
 Description Highlander Mission Document
 File size 105 Kbytes


Check out my P&M Blog!
Check out my YouTube channel, Heretic Wargaming USA: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCLiPUI3zwSxPiHzWjFQKcNA
Latest Tourney results:
1st Place Special Mission tourney 12/15/18 (Battlereps)
2nd Place ITC tourney 08/20/18 ( Battlerep)
3rd Place ITC Tourney 06/08/18(Battlereps
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





 Zid wrote:
Howdy all,

So I've decided to begin battle repping some stuff besides ITC, and I felt that Highlander would be fun and unique! So I've taken it upon myself to build a mission packet... I didn't really embelish much on the story plot, I'm more concerned with the scoring and missions; I took some ITC influence, Warzone Atlanta, and even the book and ETC. I wanted each mission to be unique, and not just a "well this mission has 3 objectives instead of 6".

Please feel free to give feedback; I need it! And hell... if you wanna play test this some be my guest Thanks in advance!


I'm tired, so take this with a grain of salt. My thoughts after a quick readthrough:

* Seems pretty solid overall.

* "Psyker," not "psycher"

* If you're going to put a restriction on the presence of Lords of War (a restriction which I'm a fan of), would it perhaps be worth considering just banning them altogether? Some people will already complain about not being able to take their knight house with the restrictions you've presented. Why not rip off the band-aid so you don't have to worry about castellans and primarchs at all? Having a single superheavy in your list works out better for some armies than others, after all. Again, mostly thinking of the castellan.

* The limited HQs and unique detachments mean that a dark eldar player will either only have 1CP detachments or else will be forced to field Drazhar (considered sub-optimal and kind of expensive by most) or else will be forced to give up their chapter tactic equivalents. We only have 3 generic HQs and 1 special character HQ that isn't a variation on a generic HQ. Lelith is a succubus, and Urien is a haemonculus.

* I question the unique detachment thing a little. Many armies in non-highlander rules can pretty reliably take two batallions at 1500 points. Far fewer armies can fill out a competitive brigade or a brigade and a batallion. So I'd worry that making double batallion illegal would risk strongly favoring armies that are already good at generating lots of CP. Many ork players already seem to be eyeballing a brigade + batallion in competitive play. That's 20CP to the 9 CP of the guy who brought a batallion and an outrider detachment.

* Where exactly is the line drawn on similar units? Sure, two tanks with the same words in their name that share a chassis are usually pretty easy to make a ruling on, but what about, say a dreadnaught versus a ven dread versus an ironclad? A wraith lord versus a wraith seer? Talos and cronos use the same kit and look kind of similar, but their names aren't all that similar. A more precise measurement of what does and doesn't make the cut might be good.

* I'm personally not a fan of maelstrom cards for tournament play. It's too easy to get a "drunken commander" who tells you to earn your points with difficult but technically possible objectives. Meanwhile, your opponent might get lucky and win the game because his commander just lazily suggests he sit on the objective he's already on and maybe kill something every turn. If you really want to use maelstrom cards, consider adding a deck building element (basically letting players remove up to X cards from their decks) and choose whether or not to use their faction-specific cards instead. Or did I skim over a section that addresses that sort of thing?



ATTENTION
. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
 
   
Made in us
Rotting Sorcerer of Nurgle






Jacksonville, NC

Wyldhunt wrote:
 Zid wrote:
Howdy all,

So I've decided to begin battle repping some stuff besides ITC, and I felt that Highlander would be fun and unique! So I've taken it upon myself to build a mission packet... I didn't really embelish much on the story plot, I'm more concerned with the scoring and missions; I took some ITC influence, Warzone Atlanta, and even the book and ETC. I wanted each mission to be unique, and not just a "well this mission has 3 objectives instead of 6".

Please feel free to give feedback; I need it! And hell... if you wanna play test this some be my guest Thanks in advance!


I'm tired, so take this with a grain of salt. My thoughts after a quick readthrough:

* Seems pretty solid overall.

* "Psyker," not "psycher"

* If you're going to put a restriction on the presence of Lords of War (a restriction which I'm a fan of), would it perhaps be worth considering just banning them altogether? Some people will already complain about not being able to take their knight house with the restrictions you've presented. Why not rip off the band-aid so you don't have to worry about castellans and primarchs at all? Having a single superheavy in your list works out better for some armies than others, after all. Again, mostly thinking of the castellan.

* The limited HQs and unique detachments mean that a dark eldar player will either only have 1CP detachments or else will be forced to field Drazhar (considered sub-optimal and kind of expensive by most) or else will be forced to give up their chapter tactic equivalents. We only have 3 generic HQs and 1 special character HQ that isn't a variation on a generic HQ. Lelith is a succubus, and Urien is a haemonculus.

* I question the unique detachment thing a little. Many armies in non-highlander rules can pretty reliably take two batallions at 1500 points. Far fewer armies can fill out a competitive brigade or a brigade and a batallion. So I'd worry that making double batallion illegal would risk strongly favoring armies that are already good at generating lots of CP. Many ork players already seem to be eyeballing a brigade + batallion in competitive play. That's 20CP to the 9 CP of the guy who brought a batallion and an outrider detachment.

* Where exactly is the line drawn on similar units? Sure, two tanks with the same words in their name that share a chassis are usually pretty easy to make a ruling on, but what about, say a dreadnaught versus a ven dread versus an ironclad? A wraith lord versus a wraith seer? Talos and cronos use the same kit and look kind of similar, but their names aren't all that similar. A more precise measurement of what does and doesn't make the cut might be good.

* I'm personally not a fan of maelstrom cards for tournament play. It's too easy to get a "drunken commander" who tells you to earn your points with difficult but technically possible objectives. Meanwhile, your opponent might get lucky and win the game because his commander just lazily suggests he sit on the objective he's already on and maybe kill something every turn. If you really want to use maelstrom cards, consider adding a deck building element (basically letting players remove up to X cards from their decks) and choose whether or not to use their faction-specific cards instead. Or did I skim over a section that addresses that sort of thing?



Thanks for your feedback!

1) On the Lords of War front - I can see this being an issue, also some stuff (Warp time + primarch) seems like it might be extremely powerful in a limited format like this. However, some Lords of War (Armigers) aren't that powerful... Maybe a limitation on how much of your list the LoW can take up? like 400 pts maximum?

2) I could also make it 0-1 special character HQ's, and 0-1 special characters for all other slots (some armies have special elites, etc.). The baseline rules I borrowed from another Highlander tournament that was made back in '17. I'm not familiar with every codex, so its good to know these niche things. This would allow you to run a special character HQ, while still allowing a single duplicate (i.e. Lilith and then a Succubus). Still limits people from running a bazillion psychers as well.

3) The unique detachments I feel is a strong rule; having lots of CP is nice, but you have to have something to use the CP on. Orks having 20 CP does nothing if they don't have something to use the CP on often. Even so, at 1500 points it really limits what they can do. However, I see your point, maybe up the CP generation of things like Spearheads, vanguards, etc. to 2 CP in this format, Patrols generate 1 CP?

4) Good question - I would say if they take up the same FOC slot; so for example, Forgeworld Dreads are all Heavy support, while Marine dreads are elites. In your Wraithlord vs Wraithseer example, one is a Heavy and one is an HQ.

5) I agree, but I feel like the cards add some randomness into the game that is lacking, and adds a layer of choice where generally there is none. I do agree; perhaps make it to where you build a deck of 20 Tactical Objectives to use, and once you use one once you remove it from your deck for the rest of a tournament? If you run out of cards you may reshuffle and start again. I think the special ones for each army are fine, none of them seem too broken. This gives you a specialized maelstrom deck of 20 for the entirety of a 3 game event, or if your playing a single mission gives you plenty.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So taking some of those suggestions Wyld gave me....

Changes in V1.1:
1) Removed the ability to take Lords of War
2) Added in Special Character HQ choices 0-1, Special Character Non-HQ Choices 0-1
3) Spelled out more clearly what 0-1 Unique means; if the base models are the same (Cronos and Talos) they are considered the same model. This goes for models with the same name, regardless of slot; Dreadnaughts are dreadnaughts, etc. However, opening up the Special Character will open some "duplicates", such as taking Bjorn the Fel Handed and another Dread in a SW army.
4) Added a draft mechanic for the Tactical Objective decks; as well, your deck gets smaller during something like a Tournament. Encourages people to complete objectives.
5) reworded anything dealing with the cards to prevent people from losing objectives that are impossible to complete. Also reworded some of the CP mechanics for redraws to allow recycling your deck a bit.
6) Bolstered CP of some detachments to prevent one sided CP generation from the "cheaper" codices

Still looking for more feedback, but this is definitely the stuff I need

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/11/24 17:53:21


Check out my P&M Blog!
Check out my YouTube channel, Heretic Wargaming USA: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCLiPUI3zwSxPiHzWjFQKcNA
Latest Tourney results:
1st Place Special Mission tourney 12/15/18 (Battlereps)
2nd Place ITC tourney 08/20/18 ( Battlerep)
3rd Place ITC Tourney 06/08/18(Battlereps
   
Made in us
Rotting Sorcerer of Nurgle






Jacksonville, NC

Heres the file.
 Filename HighlanderV1.1.docx [Disk] Download
 Description Highlander Mission Document V1.1
 File size 111 Kbytes


Check out my P&M Blog!
Check out my YouTube channel, Heretic Wargaming USA: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCLiPUI3zwSxPiHzWjFQKcNA
Latest Tourney results:
1st Place Special Mission tourney 12/15/18 (Battlereps)
2nd Place ITC tourney 08/20/18 ( Battlerep)
3rd Place ITC Tourney 06/08/18(Battlereps
   
Made in us
Rotting Sorcerer of Nurgle






Jacksonville, NC

Lookin for more feedback

Check out my P&M Blog!
Check out my YouTube channel, Heretic Wargaming USA: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCLiPUI3zwSxPiHzWjFQKcNA
Latest Tourney results:
1st Place Special Mission tourney 12/15/18 (Battlereps)
2nd Place ITC tourney 08/20/18 ( Battlerep)
3rd Place ITC Tourney 06/08/18(Battlereps
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





If I understand your change to HQ selection correctly, you're saying that I could take both a succubus and Lelith but not 2 succubi, right? As a heads up, this still somewhat results in the issue I mentioned before for Drukhari. Lelith and Urien both have a sub-faction connected to them (Cult: Cult of Strife and Coven: Prophets of the Flesh). So you're still basically not allowed to run a batallion of wyches unless you're Cult of Strife, of haemonculus stuff unless you're Prophets of the Flesh, or kabal stuff unless you field Drazhar.

I feel that your rules for similar units counting as the same are still a bit murky. Not that assault marines are a problem, but assault marines and vanguard vets don't overlap in terms of force org slots or names, but they're functionally very similar. Manticore batteris on tank chassis and on stationary platforms are quirkily different but offensively very similar. A cronos, on the other hand, is made from the same kit as a talos, but the former is basically a support/buffer unit while the talos is more of an offensive unit. The zoanthrope and venomthrope have sort of similar names and have the same kit (I think), but behave dramatically differently on the tabletop. Tactical marines versus devastators are extremely similar models (it's all power armor and a mix of big and small guns), but they have different names and different functions and force org slots. Basically, I feel like there will probably be a lot of weird exceptions that slip through the cracks. Maybe it would be easier to come up with a list of mutually-exclusive options instead? Make russes of any type 0-1. Land raiders of any type 0-1. Etc.

I know troops becoming unique was a thing in 7th edition HIghlander, but that was a very different game where troops weren't necessarry for CP generation. This rule will impact armies very unevenly. You'll have ork players that take their deepstriking bomb of boys and then just fill up the rest of the brigade's troop slots with cheap gretchen. You'll have marine players who will grumble about taking one squad of tactical marines, but only have to take a single tax unit. You'll have eldar players that have to take avengers and then rangers and then storm guardians and then guardian defenders before they can take that second ranger squad they wanted, and then they'll have to figure out if it's worth it to waste points on a transport for all the guys who will now be standing out in the open with their low toughness and squishy saves.

And then you've got stuff like daemons who have five different troop choices, but only one or two of them are inkeeping with the theme of their preferred chaos god. And then there are drukhari, being a problem child again, with their three troop choices, all of which will take away your chapter tactics if you include any two different ones in the same detachment. So if you take 1 squad of warriors and 1 squad of wyches in the same detachment, you lose your chapter tactics.

Regarding the maelstrom cards, I'm not clear whether or not you're meant to leave cards you've discarded out of your deck for the rest of the *game* or the rest of the *tournament* (until your deck runs dry and gets reshuffled). If the latter, you're going to do weird things to your mission balance where the player who happens to have lots of easy-to-score cards in his deck runs ahead on points while the other guy is struggling to get rid of the last couple of difficult objectives so that he can get back to the easy ones. Remember: some armies can score a wide range of objectives more easily than others (cast a psychic power is easy if you have a psyker but a non-include otherwise), and having one game where your scoring options screw you over probably means you've lost your shot at first place just due to card draws.

Also, some of us are too cheap to invest in (potentially multiple) decks of maelstrom cards, so you may find yourself limiting your install base by going with maelstrom cards at all.



ATTENTION
. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
 
   
Made in us
Rotting Sorcerer of Nurgle






Jacksonville, NC

Wyldhunt wrote:
If I understand your change to HQ selection correctly, you're saying that I could take both a succubus and Lelith but not 2 succubi, right? As a heads up, this still somewhat results in the issue I mentioned before for Drukhari. Lelith and Urien both have a sub-faction connected to them (Cult: Cult of Strife and Coven: Prophets of the Flesh). So you're still basically not allowed to run a batallion of wyches unless you're Cult of Strife, of haemonculus stuff unless you're Prophets of the Flesh, or kabal stuff unless you field Drazhar.


Not sure what you mean here... I'm not too familiar with the Drukhari codex. Do you mean you can't take subfactions unless you can double up on certain HQ's?

Wyldhunt wrote:
I feel that your rules for similar units counting as the same are still a bit murky. Not that assault marines are a problem, but assault marines and vanguard vets don't overlap in terms of force org slots or names, but they're functionally very similar. Manticore batteris on tank chassis and on stationary platforms are quirkily different but offensively very similar. A cronos, on the other hand, is made from the same kit as a talos, but the former is basically a support/buffer unit while the talos is more of an offensive unit. The zoanthrope and venomthrope have sort of similar names and have the same kit (I think), but behave dramatically differently on the tabletop. Tactical marines versus devastators are extremely similar models (it's all power armor and a mix of big and small guns), but they have different names and different functions and force org slots. Basically, I feel like there will probably be a lot of weird exceptions that slip through the cracks. Maybe it would be easier to come up with a list of mutually-exclusive options instead? Make russes of any type 0-1. Land raiders of any type 0-1. Etc.


Hmm... I see your point. Perhaps the name idea would be a better route to go, and take less explaining. However, I want to watch out for potentially abusive combos that get "around" the rule.

Wyldhunt wrote:
I know troops becoming unique was a thing in 7th edition HIghlander, but that was a very different game where troops weren't necessarry for CP generation. This rule will impact armies very unevenly. You'll have ork players that take their deepstriking bomb of boys and then just fill up the rest of the brigade's troop slots with cheap gretchen. You'll have marine players who will grumble about taking one squad of tactical marines, but only have to take a single tax unit. You'll have eldar players that have to take avengers and then rangers and then storm guardians and then guardian defenders before they can take that second ranger squad they wanted, and then they'll have to figure out if it's worth it to waste points on a transport for all the guys who will now be standing out in the open with their low toughness and squishy saves.

And then you've got stuff like daemons who have five different troop choices, but only one or two of them are inkeeping with the theme of their preferred chaos god. And then there are drukhari, being a problem child again, with their three troop choices, all of which will take away your chapter tactics if you include any two different ones in the same detachment. So if you take 1 squad of warriors and 1 squad of wyches in the same detachment, you lose your chapter tactics


I can see your point there, I play Daemons and would have to take all 5 (and I don't own some of them... cough Daemonettes cough). Perhaps a limit of 0-3 for any troop choice unless they take one of each troop in each codex they use? I was thinking of the issue of Orks the other day actually, and demons, in this format/


Wyldhunt wrote:
Regarding the maelstrom cards, I'm not clear whether or not you're meant to leave cards you've discarded out of your deck for the rest of the *game* or the rest of the *tournament* (until your deck runs dry and gets reshuffled). If the latter, you're going to do weird things to your mission balance where the player who happens to have lots of easy-to-score cards in his deck runs ahead on points while the other guy is struggling to get rid of the last couple of difficult objectives so that he can get back to the easy ones. Remember: some armies can score a wide range of objectives more easily than others (cast a psychic power is easy if you have a psyker but a non-include otherwise), and having one game where your scoring options screw you over probably means you've lost your shot at first place just due to card draws.


Yes, its supposed to be "use it, or lose it" sort of deal. The deck slowly thins itself, and once you run out you reshuffle. The idea is that you rarely will go through a 20 card deck (unless you are just really lucky, or really good) in 3 games, especially because not every mission uses them. This also means, however, you need to build your deck with this in mind; you could stack it with tons of cheap take and hold objectives, or casting psychic spells, or aim for the D3 VP ones more. I think this is where playtesting the missions will come in handy, I like the idea of Maelstrom cards because there isn't a "set" objective, it matches a more free-flowing battlefield where priorities shift.

Wyldhunt wrote:
Also, some of us are too cheap to invest in (potentially multiple) decks of maelstrom cards, so you may find yourself limiting your install base by going with maelstrom cards at all.


You only need the deck for your primary detachment (like in normal 40k); this format is optional, and you could technically roll from the book if you wanted. The cards just make it way easier. Plus, is $15 really breaking the bank in a hobby where we spend $120 on a single model?


Check out my P&M Blog!
Check out my YouTube channel, Heretic Wargaming USA: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCLiPUI3zwSxPiHzWjFQKcNA
Latest Tourney results:
1st Place Special Mission tourney 12/15/18 (Battlereps)
2nd Place ITC tourney 08/20/18 ( Battlerep)
3rd Place ITC Tourney 06/08/18(Battlereps
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





 Zid wrote:
Wyldhunt wrote:
If I understand your change to HQ selection correctly, you're saying that I could take both a succubus and Lelith but not 2 succubi, right? As a heads up, this still somewhat results in the issue I mentioned before for Drukhari. Lelith and Urien both have a sub-faction connected to them (Cult: Cult of Strife and Coven: Prophets of the Flesh). So you're still basically not allowed to run a batallion of wyches unless you're Cult of Strife, of haemonculus stuff unless you're Prophets of the Flesh, or kabal stuff unless you field Drazhar.


Not sure what you mean here... I'm not too familiar with the Drukhari codex. Do you mean you can't take subfactions unless you can double up on certain HQ's?


Sort of. So here are the Drukhari HQs:

* Archon = <Kabal>
* Succubus = <Cult>
* Haemonculus = <Coven>
* Drazhar = no relevant keyword (he can go in any detachment, but he's considered uncompetitive)
* Lelith Hesperax = <Cult: Cult of Strife>
* Urien Rakarth = <Coven: Prophets of the Flesh>

The list of subfactions include:
Kabal of the Black Heart
Kabal of the Flayed Skull
Kabal of the Obsidian Rose
Kabal of the Poisoned Tongue

Cult of Strife
Cult of the Cursed Blade
Cult of the Red Grief

Prophets of the Flesh
Um... that one no one ever takes, and...
The other one no one ever takes...

A batallion or brigade would require 2 or more HQs with matching keywords. So to keep your sub-faction rules, you either have to field Drazhar (the uncompetitive wildcard) or else play Cult of Strife or Prophets of the Flesh so that you could use their special characters as the second HQ of a batallion. If I want to field a Red Grief Batallion, for instance, I would be forced to field Drazhar. If I want to field a Red Grief Brigade, I can't. If I want to field a Cult of Strife Batallion, I have to field a succubus, Lelith, and Drazhar.


Wyldhunt wrote:
I feel that your rules for similar units counting as the same are still a bit murky. Not that assault marines are a problem, but assault marines and vanguard vets don't overlap in terms of force org slots or names, but they're functionally very similar. Manticore batteris on tank chassis and on stationary platforms are quirkily different but offensively very similar. A cronos, on the other hand, is made from the same kit as a talos, but the former is basically a support/buffer unit while the talos is more of an offensive unit. The zoanthrope and venomthrope have sort of similar names and have the same kit (I think), but behave dramatically differently on the tabletop. Tactical marines versus devastators are extremely similar models (it's all power armor and a mix of big and small guns), but they have different names and different functions and force org slots. Basically, I feel like there will probably be a lot of weird exceptions that slip through the cracks. Maybe it would be easier to come up with a list of mutually-exclusive options instead? Make russes of any type 0-1. Land raiders of any type 0-1. Etc.


Hmm... I see your point. Perhaps the name idea would be a better route to go, and take less explaining. However, I want to watch out for potentially abusive combos that get "around" the rule.

You probably want to just come up with a list of units that count as being part of the same "group" then. A land speeder and a land raider both have "land" in the name but probably shouldn't be mutually exclusive. Stealth Suits and Crisis suits are very different. Wraithguard, wraith lords, wraith blades, and wraith knights are all very different. Well, wraithguard and wraithblades are the same kit and have similar names, but they function very differently.



Wyldhunt wrote:
Regarding the maelstrom cards, I'm not clear whether or not you're meant to leave cards you've discarded out of your deck for the rest of the *game* or the rest of the *tournament* (until your deck runs dry and gets reshuffled). If the latter, you're going to do weird things to your mission balance where the player who happens to have lots of easy-to-score cards in his deck runs ahead on points while the other guy is struggling to get rid of the last couple of difficult objectives so that he can get back to the easy ones. Remember: some armies can score a wide range of objectives more easily than others (cast a psychic power is easy if you have a psyker but a non-include otherwise), and having one game where your scoring options screw you over probably means you've lost your shot at first place just due to card draws.


Yes, its supposed to be "use it, or lose it" sort of deal. The deck slowly thins itself, and once you run out you reshuffle. The idea is that you rarely will go through a 20 card deck (unless you are just really lucky, or really good) in 3 games, especially because not every mission uses them. This also means, however, you need to build your deck with this in mind; you could stack it with tons of cheap take and hold objectives, or casting psychic spells, or aim for the D3 VP ones more. I think this is where playtesting the missions will come in handy, I like the idea of Maelstrom cards because there isn't a "set" objective, it matches a more free-flowing battlefield where priorities shift.


Can you intentionally choose to not score a maelstrom objective even if you technically achieve it though? I forsee situations where I know I'm not going to win maelstrom and would rather hold onto my cards rather than try. For instance, I know I can easily cast a psychic power, but I also know I won't win even if I score the "cast a psychic power" objective. So I'd rather keep the card for the next game. Alternatively, I could be in a situation where I'm winning maelstrom handily but don't think I'll be able to finish the last few (and most difficult) cards in the deck easily. So rather than leave myself with only difficult objectives for the next game, I'd rather avoid scoring more than absolutely necessarry.

Which feels weird. One player could walk into a game with a (dis)advantage based on how his previous game went. Why not just let people use their full decks each game? What's the advantage of doing otherwise?


Wyldhunt wrote:
Also, some of us are too cheap to invest in (potentially multiple) decks of maelstrom cards, so you may find yourself limiting your install base by going with maelstrom cards at all.


You only need the deck for your primary detachment (like in normal 40k); this format is optional, and you could technically roll from the book if you wanted. The cards just make it way easier. Plus, is $15 really breaking the bank in a hobby where we spend $120 on a single model?



I look at it this way: $15 wouldn't break the bank, but I already have all the rules included on the cards from my codex. I might want to support your hypothetical tournament by showing up and playing, but having to pay $15 for cards I don't want/need just to get rules for a game type I'm not particularly fond of might discourage me. You know your potential participants better than I do though, so you do you. If you have someone similar to myself in the area, then having to invest in the cards or going without is like having to buy a set of dice I don't need in order to participate.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/09 05:01:58



ATTENTION
. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
 
   
Made in us
Rotting Sorcerer of Nurgle






Jacksonville, NC

Wyldhunt wrote:


Sort of. So here are the Drukhari HQs:

* Archon = <Kabal>
* Succubus = <Cult>
* Haemonculus = <Coven>
* Drazhar = no relevant keyword (he can go in any detachment, but he's considered uncompetitive)
* Lelith Hesperax = <Cult: Cult of Strife>
* Urien Rakarth = <Coven: Prophets of the Flesh>

The list of subfactions include:
Kabal of the Black Heart
Kabal of the Flayed Skull
Kabal of the Obsidian Rose
Kabal of the Poisoned Tongue

Cult of Strife
Cult of the Cursed Blade
Cult of the Red Grief

Prophets of the Flesh
Um... that one no one ever takes, and...
The other one no one ever takes...

A batallion or brigade would require 2 or more HQs with matching keywords. So to keep your sub-faction rules, you either have to field Drazhar (the uncompetitive wildcard) or else play Cult of Strife or Prophets of the Flesh so that you could use their special characters as the second HQ of a batallion. If I want to field a Red Grief Batallion, for instance, I would be forced to field Drazhar. If I want to field a Red Grief Brigade, I can't. If I want to field a Cult of Strife Batallion, I have to field a succubus, Lelith, and Drazhar.



Ah I see, so because your codex has limited choices, this limits your ability to take a select cult or faction without doubling up. So perhaps include a rule where Drukhari are the exception and may take up to 2 of a single HQ option if used to unlock a Kabal/Cult? This means they can take 2 of one HQ option only, while being limited to 1 of every other one?

Wyldhunt wrote:


Hmm... I see your point. Perhaps the name idea would be a better route to go, and take less explaining. However, I want to watch out for potentially abusive combos that get "around" the rule.

You probably want to just come up with a list of units that count as being part of the same "group" then. A land speeder and a land raider both have "land" in the name but probably shouldn't be mutually exclusive. Stealth Suits and Crisis suits are very different. Wraithguard, wraith lords, wraith blades, and wraith knights are all very different. Well, wraithguard and wraithblades are the same kit and have similar names, but they function very differently.



Right, the issue is models that are the same but with different options having different data slates (i.e. a Demon Prince of Nurgle vs Demon Prince of Tzeentch, or various land raider variants) that could otherwise get around the "rule of 1". Stealth suits and crisis suits are different, as are talos and cronos, so those wouldn't avoid the rule really; because you can take 1 talos and 1 cronos. Wraithlords and wraith knights are different, but I believe a wraith blade is just a melee wraith lord? It would be hard to break down every single niche in every codex, so thats where just asking would matter. Plus, with only 1500 points, I doubt many people are gonna try too hard to game this.

Wyldhunt wrote:


Can you intentionally choose to not score a maelstrom objective even if you technically achieve it though? I forsee situations where I know I'm not going to win maelstrom and would rather hold onto my cards rather than try. For instance, I know I can easily cast a psychic power, but I also know I won't win even if I score the "cast a psychic power" objective. So I'd rather keep the card for the next game. Alternatively, I could be in a situation where I'm winning maelstrom handily but don't think I'll be able to finish the last few (and most difficult) cards in the deck easily. So rather than leave myself with only difficult objectives for the next game, I'd rather avoid scoring more than absolutely necessarry.

Which feels weird. One player could walk into a game with a (dis)advantage based on how his previous game went. Why not just let people use their full decks each game? What's the advantage of doing otherwise?



True, theres really no harm in refilling your deck each round. I thought it would add some complexity because each mission you will have different secondaries; but you are right, people may choose not to complete objectives because they have lost already, or feel like it won't matter. I don't, however, feel like your going in at a disadvantage; you know whats in your deck from the start.

Wyldhunt wrote:


I look at it this way: $15 wouldn't break the bank, but I already have all the rules included on the cards from my codex. I might want to support your hypothetical tournament by showing up and playing, but having to pay $15 for cards I don't want/need just to get rules for a game type I'm not particularly fond of might discourage me. You know your potential participants better than I do though, so you do you. If you have someone similar to myself in the area, then having to invest in the cards or going without is like having to buy a set of dice I don't need in order to participate.


This is true, many of the people here have bought the cards and never used them because we play ITC primarily; so I wanted to give people a reason to use them.

Check out my P&M Blog!
Check out my YouTube channel, Heretic Wargaming USA: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCLiPUI3zwSxPiHzWjFQKcNA
Latest Tourney results:
1st Place Special Mission tourney 12/15/18 (Battlereps)
2nd Place ITC tourney 08/20/18 ( Battlerep)
3rd Place ITC Tourney 06/08/18(Battlereps
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





 Zid wrote:


Ah I see, so because your codex has limited choices, this limits your ability to take a select cult or faction without doubling up. So perhaps include a rule where Drukhari are the exception and may take up to 2 of a single HQ option if used to unlock a Kabal/Cult? This means they can take 2 of one HQ option only, while being limited to 1 of every other one?


That would fix the issue, though I'd worry about it feeling too gamy or like too much of an exception for one army.

Right, the issue is models that are the same but with different options having different data slates (i.e. a Demon Prince of Nurgle vs Demon Prince of Tzeentch, or various land raider variants) that could otherwise get around the "rule of 1". Stealth suits and crisis suits are different, as are talos and cronos, so those wouldn't avoid the rule really; because you can take 1 talos and 1 cronos. Wraithlords and wraith knights are different, but I believe a wraith blade is just a melee wraith lord? It would be hard to break down every single niche in every codex, so thats where just asking would matter. Plus, with only 1500 points, I doubt many people are gonna try too hard to game this.

Wraith blades are basically melee wraith guard, yeah. But what is an assault marine except a melee devastator? And aren't hormagaunts really just stabby termagaunts? It's your call. If you want to prevent people from using "loopholes," you'll have to figure out what your own definition of such a loophole is. As I said, I think it would probably be simpler to spell out the specific loopholes you want to disallow rather than trying to come up with a blanket statement based on the model name or kit.


True, theres really no harm in refilling your deck each round. I thought it would add some complexity because each mission you will have different secondaries; but you are right, people may choose not to complete objectives because they have lost already, or feel like it won't matter. I don't, however, feel like your going in at a disadvantage; you know whats in your deck from the start.

The disadvantage is in the difficulty of completing those last few objectives. Say my deck includes that one card that requires I hold twice as many objectives as my opponent. That card is more difficult to complete than, say, holding objective 2 assuming that objective 2 doesn't happen to be in my opponent's deployment zone every game. The cards that are hardest for me to score are the cards that will tend to stick around in later games because I was unable to score them. This creates the potential for me to face an opponent who managed to reshuffle his deck earlier thus giving him access to relatively easy objectives while I"m still stuck trying to score the most difficult cards in my deck. It's kind of like playing a mission where your opponent captures objectives normally, but you have to have at least two units in range to do any capturing. It's not impossible, but it does put you at a disadvantage before the game starts.

I'm not sure keeping the cards around between games would really create rewarding, engaging complexity. It seems more likely to screw someone over if they built their deck poorly for the event or if they just happen to have bad luck. Bad list design and bad dice rolls are analogus to this, but introducing a second form of it just adds yet more randomness. But again. It's your call. I personally don't see the appeal to leaving decks partially-depleted between games, but you do you.



ATTENTION
. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K Proposed Rules
Go to: