|
Post by ccourtney on Dec 6, 2009 7:19:30 GMT -5
Test Mission #1 is a variation on the standard capture and control mission to try to prevent the majority of ties that occur. Please play-test and comment. Looking for improvement suggestions or loopholes, so that we can finalize or scrap it. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by Catachan Colonel on Dec 6, 2009 10:24:55 GMT -5
Suggestion to make people go out and capture the objectives. The enemy objective and any Heroe's Glory objective is worth 5 pts But the objective that starts in your deployment zone is only worth 3 points.
|
|
|
Post by chumbalaya on Dec 6, 2009 11:45:00 GMT -5
Seems to work, maybe we can all test it Tuesday
|
|
|
Post by malice on Dec 6, 2009 16:44:08 GMT -5
A few quick thoughts.
1. Primary Objective - Make contesting an objective worth 2 points per player. As of right now - there is no incentive for contesting objectives if you are not able to take the objective yourself. Some players will use this to "improve sportsmanship", which is not playing the game.
2. Tertiary Objective - both players should not be able to get max points on any objective. Scrupulous players will negotiate scores in order to max everything ("hey, right now neither of us can get these points. Let's just say we did [wink, wink]). We have seen it and don't condone missions that allow these things to happen. It should be a draw splits the points or nothing at all.
3. Tertiary Objective - Clarify what constitutes controlling the objective. Do you need a scoring unit or is any unit allowed to control it?
Just some food for thought.
|
|
|
Post by evil_red_orks on Dec 6, 2009 16:46:23 GMT -5
We played this mish last tuesday, and I like it. Only thing Im worried about is some of the unscruplous players hanging their HQ's back in their deployment zone, and hoping to kill the oppenents from range first.
Overall this is a wonderful change from the almost always auto-draw mish it was before.
Its got my vote.
|
|
jdubb
Sergeant
oh yeah
Posts: 490
|
Post by jdubb on Dec 16, 2009 9:25:00 GMT -5
Orville and I played this last night. Overall I like it. Here are some things that came up in the game: - Does this use standard Spearhead deployment? I ask because standard spearhead has players choose a board edge first and then a table corner touching that board edge, which matters for reserves. The deployment in this mission is labeled Spearhead and is spelled out pretty precisely, but doesn't cover the board edge issue.
- Random Game length: is 4+ correct for the end of turn 6? Rulebook std is 5+.
- There are 49 maximum potential points in the scenario. Is 49 intentional?
- Should the objective be placed a minimum distance from the board edge (like 12")? The mission doesn't specify. Also, do objectives have to be placed at ground level?
- Do HQ units "removed from the game" count as "killed" for the purposes of becoming the objective? I had the humiliating experience of having my Lash Prince be the first HQ to "die" when Orville hit it with Jaws of the World Wolf and I rolled a 6 for my initiative test. Other instances of "removed from the game" would be Deamonhunter Force Weapons and Gift of Chaos.
- At first I though that the fallen hero objective was worth too much in the mission, but after thinking about it a bit, I guess it's not. Our game ended with me holding one objective, contesting one, and both of us contesting the dead HQ (my lash prince). Neither one of us had 650 more victory points than the other. So for me: 10 points for the primary, 7 points for the secondary, and 10 points for the tertiary, plus 3 bonus points = 30 points. Orville had 7 for the Secondary and 10 for the tertiary, plus 1 bonus point = 18 points. 30 to 18 seems like a Minor Victory-type points scenario which fits with how the game ended. I won the Primary, but not resoundingly and we drew the Secondary and Tertiary, so I guess it works right. It felt a little strange during the game.
In response to other people's comments: - I agree somewhat with what Malice said about the Tertiary. There is probably a way to game this, but I don't know if it would be a huge problem since there is incentive int he Primary to fight for sole control of this objective to get the 5 points for controlling more objects.
- For Terry's comment about holding HQ's back, I see it potentially encouraging a slightly different tactic: Put your cheaper HQ slightly out in front of your other things and hope your own HQ dies at range first. Then just bunker up in your deployment zone and try to claim your objective plus your own dead HQ. for maximum points/effort.
|
|
|
Post by travis on Jan 24, 2010 18:04:49 GMT -5
Any other missions to try? I realize that a bunch of you guys are gearing up for Adepticon. Did anyone else have any ideas for new missions?
|
|
|
Post by jay on May 27, 2010 7:49:34 GMT -5
Has anyone come up with new missions?
|
|
|
Post by chumbalaya on May 27, 2010 11:53:38 GMT -5
I haven't been able to test anything recently, but I have a couple ideas I'm trying to make into something more concrete.
|
|
Timbo
Sergeant
Posts: 175
|
Post by Timbo on Jun 9, 2010 12:43:43 GMT -5
In the "Take Who You Can" mission, it has both objective markers and victory points listed as the primary objective. The objective markers listing appears to be a typo.
That Devastation mission looks like fun.
|
|
|
Post by jay on Jun 9, 2010 16:13:43 GMT -5
Thanks for the feed back.
I will revise it.
|
|
|
Post by carlosthecraven on Jun 11, 2010 13:18:54 GMT -5
Hi
Comments on Test Mission One: Heroes Glory At first glance, a lot of weight seems to be on the first dead character. He (substituate for she/it where appropriate) is worth 10 for primary, as it is a 5 point objective and most likely the tie breaker for a further 5 points. Then add a further 10 point tertiary win, and then a tactical bonus, and 32 points are likely to ride on that one model.
If your goal is an intense scenario on a single focal point, then mission accomplished!
If not, then changing the tertiary to something else would allow players to focus on accomplishing something else to salvage points. There are armies that will struggle with this one.
Typo: Tact Bonus #1: add "of" between "none" and "the"
Regarding some of the other comments: Controlling and contesting should be consistent for each game. Clarifying this as part of a cover page to the whole package is what I do for Warmasters.
I generally agree with Malice on the need for points for contesting the primary and a draw for the tertiary.
Cheers, Nate
|
|
|
Post by malice on Jun 20, 2010 17:17:29 GMT -5
Here's comments from a small event that we ran this weekend:
1. Primary Objective - Do you use a character that broke and ran off the board as an objective for Heroes Glory? If so, where do you place the model as an objective?
|
|
Timbo
Sergeant
Posts: 175
|
Post by Timbo on Aug 18, 2010 14:10:31 GMT -5
Mick and I tried out the Devastation mission last night. Having both KP and VP as victory conditions was a nice way to balance things between small elite armies and big gribbly armies. The only thing I would change is to make the tertiary worth a bit more points wise. For us, that was the more interesting part of the mission, and it was weighted fairly low.
|
|
|
Post by hyv3mynd on Aug 18, 2010 15:55:34 GMT -5
Here's comments from a small event that we ran this weekend: 1. Primary Objective - Do you use a character that broke and ran off the board as an objective for Heroes Glory? If so, where do you place the model as an objective? LOL, not much Glory in fleeing the battlefield. I'd say that guy missed out on being the objective. Prolly should be first HQ to lose all wounds.
|
|