|
Post by Ranger Dude on Apr 26, 2006 23:21:36 GMT -5
I had a thought. Probably not all that unique a thought since it was inspired by various other things that other people have thought. But it's my thought and I thought I'd share it.
Now that I've said that inane drivel...
What do you guys think of incorporating hidden objectives into the regular RT Scenarios. I was thinking of something along the lines of this. At the begining of a three round tourney, each player is handed 5 possible objectives (Like the ones at the Den). They can then pick one for each mission that comes up, keeping it hidden. At the end of the game, the hidden objective would be revealed and points added to the battle score if it had been achieved. Each objective can only be used once.
The reason I like this idea is that it would lend an element of unpredictability to the missions, and take a bit of the emphasis off of who killed more. It would also be a way for someone who got trounced to still make some points for themselves. And, you could benefit from having an attainable objective in missions loaded against you, or solidifying your position in a mission in your favor. It's just a thought. What do you think? (There I go again with the overthinking my thoughts.)
|
|
|
Post by Wolf Lord Snorville on Apr 26, 2006 23:28:26 GMT -5
/serious = on I like the objective cards idea. My problem with the cards in Coyote's den occurs when you get a stupid combo like when you start with diagonal deployment and you need to get the most units within 12" of the opposite corner from your deployment zone... that really sucks.
Or worse is when you can get max points for a mission by staying in the 12" by 12" corner of your deployment zone that is farthest away from your opponent.
The concept is pretty cool though. I do agree with the comment I saw elsewhere on the board (I think it was in the fantasy tourney setion) - there shouldn't be a choice involved with teh secondary objective... that would people can't pick an objective based on their opponent.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger Dude on Apr 27, 2006 0:13:55 GMT -5
I guess that the alternative would be to have everyone draw one randomly each round. This still keeps them hidden and hopefully different from your opponent's. I'm actually ok with choice though, but limited choice. That's why I put in the stipulation of one use only and only a few more objectives than rounds.
Maybe we should start experimenting with this at the shop. If we get it working we could try it out at a tourney sometime.
|
|
|
Post by Catachan Colonel on Apr 27, 2006 8:30:44 GMT -5
they have mission games already, they are called alpha level missions.
I dont think its to far a suprise that amything with victory points no matter if you have hidden goals or public ones is 95% of the time is just a kill more of them mission.
I would say we could make up some new alpha level missions with goals outside of the 5 in the book.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger Dude on Apr 27, 2006 11:30:39 GMT -5
I agree that Alpha lvl mission are objective oriented. I'm not denying that. I'm not suggesting the mission cards to replace the existing missions. I'm suggesting them as a way to enhance the existing missions. While the primary goal of two armies may be the same, they usually will have a secondary goal as well. That's where these cards would come in.
Example, your army and my army are in a cleanse situation. We are both trying tohold the most ground. But, my army happens to want a particualr piece of ground more than the rest, and your army is certain that killing my commander will improve their odds over time. (Two mission cards, one for each of us.)
This is just my idea to add a little something extra to the game. Since these objectives would be hidden, it also adds a bit of mystery (not exactly the word I want). You don't know what I'm trying to achieve beyond primary, and vice versa.
I do also like the idea of designing some more alpha level missions that are more objective oriented. But there is no reasonn we can't do both.
|
|
MajorSoB
Moderator
The oldest
THE GRUMPY OLD MAN!
Posts: 2,135
|
Post by MajorSoB on Apr 27, 2006 15:41:49 GMT -5
If this is going to be a 5 round tourney, I think idea would be good in either the second or third rounds, since I am sure it's unpredicability might piss off someone near the top that ends up pulling a loss in one of the last rounds due to some random fruity hidden objective. I think if we do anything other than standard missions, we should post clear and concise rules governing each mission so that some players are not suprized and discouraged.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger Dude on Apr 27, 2006 21:15:07 GMT -5
Which is why I suggested we test it out in the shop before even trying it in a tourney environment. Also, I don't think the secondary objectives should effect the winning or losing of the main objective. They would be small bonuses added straight to the battle score, kind of like the little pt modifiers at the bottom of every mission. (you know, -1 if you control no table quarters, -1 if you did not destroy an enemy unit.) Something along the lines of +1 for completing the objective, -1 for failing to complete it. I don't think they should cause major changes. Just a little element of uncertainty.
|
|