Daboyz GT test missions

[Ranger Dude]

My brother and I played Shack and Awe last night. Generally fun, but we noticed something. If both armies pick different objectives, it is no different than a normal kill point mission. Normal kill point missions, you get a change of 1 pt between scores for every kill you make. In this one, it's a change of three points. (+3 or +1 and -2) I think this should maybe be adjusted in some fashion to differentiate it. If both teams choose the same thing, it's a swing of 5 points for every kill within the chosen form, and a swing of 1 point outside the chosen form. My suggestion would be shift it to a -1 for the negative. This would make the swing in a one of each game 3 points in chosen area and 2 points in non-chosen. In a two of one battle, the swing would be 4 points in area and 2 points in non-area.

Basically, if each player chooses a different form, than it no longer matters which way you kill your opponent. Hopefully you can follow the math/logic I used and see why it should be adjusted.

[hyv3mynd]

Yeah, it ends up being the same as a normal KP mission if each army chooses a different method and each ends up killing the same amount of units. For the primary objective.

Killing 2 LR's and 2 terminator units yeilds a lot more VP than 2 rhinos and 2 tac squads. Thus the secondary objective has potential to create differentiation.

Then there's tactical bonuses.

The killer of KP missions is drawing with lopsided results. For example killing 6 rhinos in a mech marine list, but losing 6 out of 9 kp's in a kp optimized list.

To quantify it, lets say:
Player A kills 2 rhinos, 2 razorbacks, 2 scout squads. 6 Kp, ~300vp. They went after the easiest KP.
Player B kills 1 chapter master (only HQ), 1 8x terminator unit, 1 venerable dread (only elites), 1 vindicator, 1 LR crusader (only heavy selections). 6kp, ~975vp.

Scoring would be:
Player A: 8+0+0 = 8
Player B: 8+15+1+1 = 25

Even though they tied on kp.

The GT has tons of objective missions in the primer list. I was trying to come up with some focused on killing as they are represented in the brb to maintin balance. Otherwise, why not just bring MSU style lists with 6 troops and win by not losing?

[Ranger Dude]

I fully agree with the concept you are going for. But I still think that using the fix I mentioned would be better. The problem with having both people use different methods isn't just that it becomes a standard mission, it's that it makes it no longer matter which method you use to kill. I choose shooting, and my opponent chooses cc. I kill a unit with shooting, and I get 3 points. I kill a unit with cc, and I get one point, my opponent loses 2 pts. Its still a net change of 3 points. So, what is the point of choosing my method in this case. If the point of the primary mission is to get the players to choose a preferred method, then all possible combinations should force them to think about that choice throughout the game. Otherwise it defeats the purpose of the mission.

Yes, the secondary and tertiary can alleviate this, but any mission specific special rules should always be a factor in mission play. Right now, there is one combination that says, "This mission is designed around this special rule, but this special rule means nothing for this combination." If you are going to put that much thought into a mission specific special rule, then you should make it mean something.