Da Boyz 2011 Mission Feedback

[warmasterprimus]

I was looking over the missions and had some comments and criticisms. Here they are in no specific order:

1) King of the Hill is a cool mission. I like that it forces you to move and push your enemy into their deployment zone. The mechanic of "Ol' Faithful" is also novel and refreshing. I normally don't really like Spearhead, but I think it works great here. I'm looking forward to trying it out.

2) Speaking of spearhead, 4/5 of the Primer missions are spearhead deployment (and the 5th has a typo saying it's Spearhead in the deployment heading). With the exception of King of the Hill, I think other deployment types would work just fine.

3) Ear Collectors is a pretty cool (I like the slight modification of KPs), but I think that having ears being primary and kill points being secondary is a bit redundant. If you get one, you'll probably get both. Instead, if both players had an objective in their deployment zone that they had to hold, it would force players to hold at least a unit back to hold their objective while still sending out other units to get ears. I think something else could be added to this one, but I can't think of what.

4) Kill points in 'Hold at all Costs' is well balanced. Needing a 2+ margin of KPs for the victory is nice and could be implemented in the other missions.

5) I really don't like the moving objectives in the 'Codename Firefly' mission. When I went to The Conflict GT, there were 2 missions where the objective placement got me the win. No finesse of tactics were necessary and I felt bad afterwards because randomness won the mission, not me. One mission had me placing 2 objectives to my opponents 1, while the other had a bouncing "comet" that we had to claim. Focusing on the "comet" mission, the objective bounced right into my fortified deployment zone.

That said, I think that there are some mechanics that mitigate the randomness (decreasing distance as game goes on is already built in and good). Having all 3 objective start on the center line in predetermined locations would be good (otherwise, what happens when 1 player gets to place 2 objectives, and does so in his own corners. By placing them in the corners, you halve the possible directions they move, making them more likely to stay in those original corners). You could also have all 3 start in the center and they will move out randomly.

Still, we're going to get quite a few games where at least 2 of those objectives dive for cover in someones deployment zone, making it a really easy game for one player.

On a final note, the firefly mechanic is pretty cool. Here are some additional concepts that I think would work well with it: For each turn you hold an objective, you get a point. Whoever has the most objective points at the end of the game is the winner. It becomes a tradeoff of holding objectives over the entire course of the game, and getting shot at.

---

Let me know if I'm full of crap (or at least more than usual).

Chris P

[Timbo]

Haven't played any of the missions yet, but I found a few things that might need clarification:

Doom! - In the deployment section, it states that objectives should be set up before the roll to go first, but in the special rule states that objectives should be set up after determining deployment zones. Which is correct? Also, how many objectives are set up? Does each player only place one objective, or are there supposed to be more?

Hold at all cost - There are rules for objective markers, but they aren't used in the scoring. Also might want to put in something clarifying how to count units that are in multiple quarters.

The missions themselves sound fun, I really want to try out the firefly mission.

[hyv3mynd]

Thanks for the feedback guys.

@crisp:

1) LMK if you try it out. This was one I wrote for last year that didn't make the cut.

2) IDK how so many ended up as spearhead hehe. It's certainly not intended to be a spearhead tournament. I submitted 4 missions with one of each deployment type and a second spearhead. My pitched battle scenario isn't posted yet and either didn't make the cut, is still being formatted, or is being kept secret Someone else wrote Doom and HAAC so I don't know if spearhead deployment is an essential balancing factor, but I will suggest we make Ear Collectors a pitched battle game. Part of mechanic in Operation Firefly requires that it remain DoW deployment.

3) I disagree that Ears and KP's as primary and secondary are redundant. Take this example: My space wolf opponent has a long fang squad that goes on a shooting spree and collects 4 ears. During the last turn, I jump them with genestealers and get 5 ears (their 4 + 1 for their own KP). My opponent does the same with a thunderwolf deathstar that goes on a rampage collecting 4 ears until my carnifex unit finally catches them and gets 5 ears. In this vacuum, my opponent has earned 8kp, but I have 10 ears. In this way, it's possible to win one and lose the other. I designed this mechanic to balance point distribution so that you don't get the "I almost tabled my opponent and still lost the mission" issues.

5) I like the idea of starting all 3 objectives at the halfway mark and we can change the mission to that wording. I do think they need to move to prevent camping and to potentially spotlight units that may be intentionally hiding for the full-game night fight. The scenario is supposed to feel like a wild goose chase. Even if 2 of the 3 objectives favor one player, that player will be much more vulnerable to shooting as more of their units will be spotlighted and their opponent will be approaching in the safety of darkness. If we make the objectives/spotlights stationary, we will have to rename the mission "Street Light"

Keep the feedback coming! I'm usually free 1-2 nights a week and I'll either be painting or trying to test the missions so PM me if you'd like to help.

[warmasterprimus]

Aug 20, 2011 16:05:06 GMT -5 @hyv3mynd said:

3) I disagree that Ears and KP's as primary and secondary are redundant. Take this example: My space wolf opponent has a long fang squad that goes on a shooting spree and collects 4 ears. During the last turn, I jump them with genestealers and get 5 ears (their 4 + 1 for their own KP). My opponent does the same with a thunderwolf deathstar that goes on a rampage collecting 4 ears until my carnifex unit finally catches them and gets 5 ears. In this vacuum, my opponent has earned 8kp, but I have 10 ears. In this way, it's possible to win one and lose the other. I designed this mechanic to balance point distribution so that you don't get the "I almost tabled my opponent and still lost the mission" issues.

I didn't even think about that. That sounds much more interesting. I like it much more than the KP & VP combo you usually see. My mind has been changed.

[professor]

These are mainly issues to do with the actual primer mission write ups themselves but I figured they were worth mentioning here. Having typos and errors in these is a bit unprofessional.

Doom
Overview - paragraph "...massive blow to you army..." This should be 'your'

Deployment - paragraph 2: "...then alternate make any scout moves..." This should be 'making'

Objectives - paragraph 1: "...Points than there opponent." This is the wrong there/their/they're. It should be 'their'

Scoring Rubric

Secondary: "Note: Terrain Features" The secondary objective is objectives, not terrain features.

Total Battle Points: "(add up totals from previous 4 lines)" There are only 3 lines to add.

Opponent Feedback

"He/she did not share there army list before hand..." Wrong their/there/they're. This should be 'Their'

"...models with out your permission?" Without is a single word in this case.

"Where they being rolled..." This should be 'were'


The scoring rubric has a section for bonus points, but no bonuses are listed on the mission.

(Reviewing Mission 2, did not want to lose this text)

Ear Collectors

Deployment rules formatting inconsistent with Doom Mission (no bold on the special rules. Additional text present as well ("must follow all deployment rules specific to their codex)"

Deployment - paragraph 3: "...then alternate make any scout moves..." This should be 'making'

Special Rules: "They also receive any ear markets..." Markets should be 'markers'.

"...lone wolves will yeild an ear if killed" Yeild should be 'Yield'

"...unit received the appropriate ear markers..." Received should be 'receives'.

Objectives - paragraph 1: ": "The player who’s remaining forces..." Who's is ownership should be 'whose' which is the possessive form of who.

"...posses the most ear markers wins" Posses is the vigilante group, possesses is ownership (or possess).

Same issues in scoring as the first mission for the 'total' line and sportsmanship scores.






Repsonse?
--If this is useful feedback for the write ups I can review the remaining three missions as well. Right off the bat the game length in 'Hold at All Costs' should be 'lasts.'

[hyv3mynd]

Thanks for the proof reading Eric.

Kevin and I are play testing tonight and I just printed out the missions. I also noticed that "Codename: Firefly" lists deployment as Spearhead in the header, but the picture and description are for Dow (DoW is the correct deployment for the mission).

Jay ~ Can you also change (or have Chris change) "Ear Collectors" to pitched battle deployment please.

I hope to have some test results and feedback after our game tonight also.

[professor]

No problem, if you want to forward me the original word documents I could probably 'Track Changes' modify them in less time overall? Otherwise I will go through the rest this weekend.

I am also going to be at Millenium Saturday if anyone wants to playtest a mission. I wonder if I can convince the wife to let me go tonight...

[hyv3mynd]

Played "Ear Collectors" last night and sure enough, Kevin beat me by several ears despite me taking kill points. Fun version of Annihilation that forces you to reconsider target priority and offensive/defensive choices.

Some wording should be added to the "Ear Collector" special rule. Something like:

"Ears Markers collected by units joined by independent characters become attached to either the original unit or independent character depending on who caused the final wound. In the event that the combined unit earns an Ear Marker via sweeping advance or causing a failed morale test, randomly determine if the unit or the character receive it. Independent characters may leave one unit and join another, but may only transfer Ear Markers that were earned by the character itself."

[grubnards]

it was a fun mission but to be honest I was so wrapped up in trying to remember what I was dooming/guiding/etc... that I didn't pay much attention to the primary/secondary objectives in the first few turns.

Like Aaron said, he had me on kill points and ears but then when his solo librarian, who had 2 ears, charged my guardian squad in the last turn, I was able to grab three ears out of the deal and swinging it in my favor.

Definitely a fun scenario that makes you think differently other than straight up kill points.

Oh, for those of you who laugh at my awful dice rolls, Eldrad suffered Perils of the Warp 4 times in that game with double ones but luckily his ghosthelm saved on all of them.

[netter]

Have not played any of these yet but they look amazing and fun. I would be happy to play any of them at tournament.

The only concerns I had were with Reinforcements or Liabilities and Poker Face.

In Reinforcements or Liabilities, can your opponent keep nominating the same unit (of his opponent) to return. This assumes he destroys it on his following turn. The RAW seem to suggest this is so.
Also, if a lone wolf is killed and then nominated to return, and survives, does the space wolf player suffer the KP penalty per space wolf codex rules?

Poker Face is an awesome looking scenario and I would play it. My only concern is the complexity. Too often, players will misplay the rules when they get too detailed. In some cases, they simply disregard the scenario (yes, it happens). I would simplify or drop this one. If it must stay, make it a Saturday morning scenario.

That's all I got. Love the scenarios. Dwindling Supplies is my favorite.

netter

[hyv3mynd]

Thanks for the feedback Netter.

It's definitely a challenge to write missions that are balanced and fun without becoming too complex. My biggest fear is that someone's GT experience is adversely affected by missions being too complex or improperly played due to the writing.

In response to reinforcements or liabilities:

Yes, you can give your opponent the same unit at the beginning of each of their player turns if you successfully destroy it during each of your turns. That's where the name of the mission came from. For instance, if your army has many missiles and you're playing against tyranids with any of the warrior variants, you kill the unit on turn 3, give it back turn 4, kill it, and give it back turn 5. I believe some smarty pants figured this out at our primer last week.

It also creates some interesting dilemmas with target priority. In my game during the primer, I reserved almost everything in my army and had terrible reserve rolls. I did start a dreadknight on the table which went kamikazee and due to my poor reserve rolls, was the only unit I had lost by the end of turn 3. As a result, I got it right back on turn 4. My opponent had several destroyed units, so I decided to give him a lascannon razorback, which appeared directly behind my rifleman dread and immobilized it. I successfully killed the razorback during my turn, but decided to give it back during his turn again instead of his large units of assault marines. Don't you know it appeared directly behind my immobilized dread again for another free shot? Meanwhile, I had lost my second unit of the game (GK terminators) after an assault spanning several turns. My dreadknight had come back last turn so my terminators were the only choice for my opponent to give me and lucky me, they showed up right next to the returning razorback.

All in all, I think it makes for a very fun game. There is potential for abuse (or smart play as some would call it) with units that are easy to kill or bad match-ups. My hope is that it encourages people to play their armies differently than normal and to think "outside the box".

Pertaining to lone wolves, bjorn, or any other unit that has special kill point rules, my intent is that the modified kill points for the game replace all of that. Perhaps I can change the "modified kill points" to "slaughter points" or a similar concept with a different name. In effect, a 85pt lone wolf would be worth 1 slaughter point, a 105pt lone wolf would be worth 2, etc.

[Goldeagle]

Hey Aaron,

How many modified kill points apply to a unit that splits into combat squads? In other words is a 475 point terminator unit that combat squads now two squads which are both worth 5 kill points or does each squad calculate their kill point value based on how much they are worth independently? Assuming they are calculated independently, if one combat squad costs 225 points they would be worth 3 kill points and the other costing 250 points would also be worth 3 kill points (i.e. by using combat squads the number of modified kill points in the army tends to go up). This later approach sounds the most fair and balanced to me, but I wanted to see if this issue had been anticipated? Likewise, it should probably be clarified on the mission sheet.

[hyv3mynd]

Modified kill points are applied to the unit in whatever state it was destroyed. If you combat squad 10 gkt into 2x5 each combat squad would be worth 3 modified points as long as their individual upgrades didn't push the combat squad over 300pts.

[hyv3mynd]

To answer your questions fully:

1. A 475pt GKT unit left whole is worth 5 modified kill points (changed to liability points in the new version).

2. Combat squadded in half, a 5 man GKT combat squad worth 225pts would count as 3 liability points.

3. As such, combat squadding can actually hurt you in this mission. It can also help you as 5 marines are easier to destroy and thus, easier to receive as reinforcements to swing the battle back in your favor.

I consider myself a 40k "pure-ist" in that I actually give GW credit in their balancing factors built into the base rules and missions. MSU armies were extremely popular and powerful in many 2010-11 tournaments because some tournaments de-emphasized or completely eliminated Kill Points.

NOVA 2010 was a good example of this. Their missions were won by objectives, table quarters, and victory points. There was no penalty to taking minimum unit sizes with a transport for every one. This gave an even larger advantage to MSU builds in objective games and vp/quarters to a lesser extent.

NOVA 2011 added kill points into their win/tiebreaker conditions and look what happened, an 8kp elite army took 2nd overall.

ATC 2011 was also an example of not fully balancing the KP system. Every single game scored 3 seize ground objectives, 2 cap'n'control objectives, and kill points. MSU armies still largely did well due to their mechanics on the table. You can kill one unit from a 24kp min/max mech list and reduce it's efficiency very little, whereas rock/deathstar armies couldn't kill enough units over the course of a game to defeat them on objectives. The result was MSU armies still doing extremely well by conceding KP's, but winning both SG and CnC. Ben M/spacecurves wrote a nice batrep on BoLS about his game with Jay laying this whole plan out nicely. He knew he would never beat Jay's ~13KP GK list with his own 20+KP DE list on KP's, so he broke off every haemunculi and independent character so Jay physically couldn't kill enough targets over the course of a 6 turn game to stop him from taking and contesting all the objectives.

I took all these factors into account when I wrote the missions. Granted, the comp rubric also prevents most min/max MSU builds. My ultimate goal was 4 objective games and 2 KP games out of the 6 games of the GT. This maintains the balance written into the main rulebook missions.

The second challenge was making missions "fun yet balanced" by adding or changing various mechanics. I hope everyone is taking opportunities to play test them when they can as there are a lot of interesting mechanics that I hope will change they way people play, take them out of their "comfort zone" and encourage creative thinking.

For example, Reinforcements or Liabilities forces you to return destroyed units to your opponent which can change your target priority. Your opponent may have one or more units that don't threaten your army or build which you would normally ignore. However, you may want to spend resources killing these units now so you don't have to give them hard hitting units back as reinforcements.

Dwindling supplies features a mechanic where you remove 2 objectives during the game, making it difficult for players to camp/castle on objectives. It also potentially penalizes you if you don't control any objectives by turn 4, forcing people to commit earlier and prevent late game objective grabs.

Hot Potatoes features objectives you actually don't want to capture, the loser being the one closest to an objective at the end. This also has a potentially limiting factor on MSU or the decision to combat squad, as more units give you more chances to end up too close to a "Hot Potato".

Anyways, I ramble on. Thanks for the help and feedback for everyone. Like I said, the missions have some balancing factors in the design as well as fun factors. At least that was the intent behind the design.