Battleground Games Forum
Games Workshop => Warhammer 40K => Topic started by: keithb on October 09, 2013, 01:00:21 PM
-
Hey Guys, I am trying to work out the missions for this years Onslaught GT at Templecon. I am hoping you guys could help me do some play testing.
Keep in mind these missions are not final, nor are they in any particular order.
These are designed for 1850 points, but I suppose you can play them for any level. You can post feedback here or PM any info to me.
All missions are on a 20/0 sliding scale. Each VP that you win by increases your score by one, and decreases your opponent's score by one. Equal VPs results in a 10-10 draw.
Missions A: Vanguard Strike deployment. Each player places one objective in their deployment zone(normal rules apply for placing objectives). At the end of the game each of these objectives are worth 4 VPs if controlled. Place a single objective at the center of the table. This is a Relic, follow all normal rules for the relic, except that it cannot be moved until turn 2, also, a model with the IC rule may not control/move the relic on its own. The relic is worth 5 VPs if controlled at the end of the game. First Blood, Slay the warlord and line breaker are each worth 1 VP if achieved.
Missions B1: Hammer and Anvil deployment. Each player places three objectives in their table half(normal rules apply for placing objectives). Before deployment, after all objectives are placed, roll to randomly determine the VP value for each objective, each player will have one worth 2VPs, one worth 3VPs, and one worth 4VPs. Controlling your own objectives are worth 1VP each at the end of the game. Controlling your opponents objectives are worth the randomly determined value(2 or 3 or 4)VPs. First Blood, Slay the warlord and line breaker are each worth 1 VP if achieved. In this mission fast attack choices are considered scoring and yield 1VP if destroyed.
Missions B2: Hammer and Anvil deployment. Place 5 objectives along the (6ft) center line of the table. One in the center, one 12" on each side of that objective, and one 12" beyond each of those objectives. Objectives score as follows at the end of the game: Starting with the objective 12" from the back of your deployment zone(which is worth 1VP) each objective closer to your opponents back table edge is worth +1VP(so the one closet to his back edge is worth 5VPs, and the center is worth 3VPs).
First Blood, Slay the warlord and line breaker are each worth 1 VP if achieved. In this mission fast attack choices are considered scoring and yield 1VP if destroyed.
Missions C: Dawn of War deployment. Place one objective at the center of each table quarter and a 5th objective at the center of the table. These objectives may be scored during the game, at the end of your opponents turn if you control them(1 VP each), your opponent can score them at the end of your turn. Scoring these objectives starts during the second game turn, and continues until the game is over. The objective at the center of the table is worth 2VPs each time it is scored.
Annihilation. (Each unit is worth 1VP if destroyed).
First Blood, Slay the warlord and line breaker are each worth 1 VP if achieved.
Missions D: Dawn of War deployment. Place an objective in the center of each table quarter. These objectives are worth 3VPs each at the end of the game. First Blood, Slay the warlord and line breaker are each worth 1 VP if achieved. In this mission Heavy support choices are considered scoring and yield 1VP if destroyed.
Missions E: Vanguard Strike deployment. Place three objectives along the (diagonal) center line. Each of these objectives is a Relic. At the beginning of turn 2. A randomly determined Relic is removed from the table(roll a d3). Each remaining relic is worth 4VPs if controlled at the end of the game. A unit may only control one relic at a time. A model with the IC rule may not possess the relic by itself.
First Blood, Slay the warlord and line breaker are each worth 1 VP if achieved.
Annihilation (each unit is worth 1VP if destroyed).
@Chase, Sticky?
-
i was literately just talking about templecon with some people this morning!
So it's going to be 1850 not 2k?
now that templecon is 4 days instead of 3 that change anything?
hopefully doubles has a much bigger turn out than it did last year
-
going to be 1850.
GT is only on the weekend, so other days don't matter. I'll message the RI guys about the doubles.
-
Hey Guys, I am trying to work out the missions for this years Onslaught GT at Templecon. I am hoping you guys could help me do some play testing.
Keep in mind these missions are not final, nor are they in any particular order.
These are designed for 1850 points, but I suppose you can play them for any level. You can post feedback here or PM any info to me.
All missions are on a 20/0 sliding scale. Each VP that you win by increases your score by one, and decreases your opponent's score by one. Equal VPs results in a 10-10 draw.
Missions A: Vanguard Strike deployment. Each player places one objective in their deployment zone(normal rules apply for placing objectives). At the end of the game each of these objectives are worth 4 VPs if controlled. Place a single objective at the center of the table. This is a Relic, follow all normal rules for the relic, except that it cannot be moved until turn 2. The relic is worth 5 VPs if controlled at the end of the game. First Blood, Slay the warlord and line breaker are each worth 1 VP if achieved.
Missions B: Hammer and Anvil deployment. Each player places three objectives in their table half(normal rules apply for placing objectives). Before deployment, after all objectives are placed, roll to randomly determine the VP value for each objective, each player will have one worth 2VPs, one worth 3VPs, and one worth 4VPs. Controlling your own objectives are worth 1VP each at the end of the game. Controlling your opponents objectives are worth the randomly determined value(2 or 3 or 4)VPs. First Blood, Slay the warlord and line breaker are each worth 1 VP if achieved. In this mission fast attack choices are considered scoring and yield 1VP if destroyed.
Missions C: Dawn of War deployment. Place one objective at the center of each table quarter and a 5th objective at the center of the table. These objectives may be scored during the game, at the end of your opponents turn if you control them(1 VP each), your opponent can score them at the end of your turn. Scoring these objectives starts during the second game turn, and continues until the game is over. The objective at the center of the table is worth 2VPs each time it is scored.
Annihilation. (Each unit is worth 1VP if destroyed).
First Blood, Slay the warlord and line breaker are each worth 1 VP if achieved.
Missions D: Dawn of War deployment. Once table sides are determined, each player places 2 objectives. These objectives are worth 3VPs each at the end of the game. First Blood, Slay the warlord and line breaker are each worth 1 VP if achieved. In this mission Heavy support choices are considered scoring and yield 1VP if destroyed.
Missions E: Vanguard Strike deployment. Place three objectives along the (diagonal) center line. Each of these objectives is a Relic. At the beginning of turn 2. A randomly determined Relic is removed from the table(roll a d3). Each remaining relic is worth 4VPs if controlled at the end of the game.
First Blood, Slay the warlord and line breaker are each worth 1 VP if achieved.
Annihilation (each unit is worth 1VP if destroyed).
@Chase, Sticky?
I think having ALL missions be objectives might be an issue. Random VP objectives are also an issue because there is a very real chance that one person is going to get the highest ones in his own deployment zone, and his opponent will literally have no chance to win unless he completely tables his opponent. I can see this mathematically coming out to a lot of draws/barely wins.
If you are going to do objectives in a GT, it's best if you do "one in the middle, 4 in each center of each quarter" - that way no matter where you set up or the deployment type, both players have an equal shot at getting to the objective.
-
Hey Guys, I am trying to work out the missions for this years Onslaught GT at Templecon. I am hoping you guys could help me do some play testing.
Keep in mind these missions are not final, nor are they in any particular order.
These are designed for 1850 points, but I suppose you can play them for any level. You can post feedback here or PM any info to me.
All missions are on a 20/0 sliding scale. Each VP that you win by increases your score by one, and decreases your opponent's score by one. Equal VPs results in a 10-10 draw.
Missions A: Vanguard Strike deployment. Each player places one objective in their deployment zone(normal rules apply for placing objectives). At the end of the game each of these objectives are worth 4 VPs if controlled. Place a single objective at the center of the table. This is a Relic, follow all normal rules for the relic, except that it cannot be moved until turn 2. The relic is worth 5 VPs if controlled at the end of the game. First Blood, Slay the warlord and line breaker are each worth 1 VP if achieved.
Missions B: Hammer and Anvil deployment. Each player places three objectives in their table half(normal rules apply for placing objectives). Before deployment, after all objectives are placed, roll to randomly determine the VP value for each objective, each player will have one worth 2VPs, one worth 3VPs, and one worth 4VPs. Controlling your own objectives are worth 1VP each at the end of the game. Controlling your opponents objectives are worth the randomly determined value(2 or 3 or 4)VPs. First Blood, Slay the warlord and line breaker are each worth 1 VP if achieved. In this mission fast attack choices are considered scoring and yield 1VP if destroyed.
Missions C: Dawn of War deployment. Place one objective at the center of each table quarter and a 5th objective at the center of the table. These objectives may be scored during the game, at the end of your opponents turn if you control them(1 VP each), your opponent can score them at the end of your turn. Scoring these objectives starts during the second game turn, and continues until the game is over. The objective at the center of the table is worth 2VPs each time it is scored.
Annihilation. (Each unit is worth 1VP if destroyed).
First Blood, Slay the warlord and line breaker are each worth 1 VP if achieved.
Missions D: Dawn of War deployment. Once table sides are determined, each player places 2 objectives. These objectives are worth 3VPs each at the end of the game. First Blood, Slay the warlord and line breaker are each worth 1 VP if achieved. In this mission Heavy support choices are considered scoring and yield 1VP if destroyed.
Missions E: Vanguard Strike deployment. Place three objectives along the (diagonal) center line. Each of these objectives is a Relic. At the beginning of turn 2. A randomly determined Relic is removed from the table(roll a d3). Each remaining relic is worth 4VPs if controlled at the end of the game.
First Blood, Slay the warlord and line breaker are each worth 1 VP if achieved.
Annihilation (each unit is worth 1VP if destroyed).
@Chase, Sticky?
I think having ALL missions be objectives might be an issue. Random VP objectives are also an issue because there is a very real chance that one person is going to get the highest ones in his own deployment zone, and his opponent will literally have no chance to win unless he completely tables his opponent.
Please read that mission again and let me know if it is still unclear what is happening.
-
Hah! These missions are awesome. I do agree with typhus that a single Kill point game is probably welcome but I like all 5 missions too much to say which should go. I'll be playing C, E, and B in that order this weekend. And depending on what happens maybe I'll do a couple in depth batreps up for dakka/BG/whatever. It's been a while since I've done one so it's overdue I think ;p
I'm interested to see how the relic missions work with flyers when you can't pick them up till turn 2.
-
The game is not designed too well for KP missions to be a primary mission as some armies are not very killy at all, some armies are way too killy etc. Its why very few events use KP as primary objective.
Keith the missions look solid obviously the fellas will do some testing for you over the next couple of months.
-
I'm glad you kept the "Accumulating objective" mission for one of the games. As I've often repeated, I wish all objectives were like that...
-
I'm glad you kept the "Accumulating objective" mission for one of the games. As I've often repeated, I wish all objectives were like that...
It is my favorite.
-
Also, for kill points... You guys have noticed that 2 missions have kill points right? You can win those games by simply contesting objectives and killing stuff.
-
Updated top post with feedback. made slight changes to mission D. Also, have an alternate for mission B. Please play both and let me know which you prefer.
-
My only thought/ concern is that one mission allows for drastically more VP points than the rest of the missions and does not adhere to the sliding scale the rest do. It is impossible to get more than 20 points for most scenarios, but entirely possible to get even double that in mission C. Not impossible to hold 4 objectives for say 5 rounds (20 points) then get 10 more kill points than your opponent, net of 30 points...or does this one just cap at 20?
-
The game is not designed too well for KP missions to be a primary mission as some armies are not very killy at all, some armies are way too killy etc. Its why very few events use KP as primary objective.
Keith the missions look solid obviously the fellas will do some testing for you over the next couple of months.
You could argue the same thing with cumulative missions or relic. For example, not every army has troops that can infiltrate or drop pod or whatever onto objectives/relics turn 1, so those armies do have an advantage in those missions.
With cumulative missions, not every army can reasonably get scoring units onto an objective for the end of each opponent turn. I'd recommend having either fast attack or heavy (or both, still yielding an extra VP) scoring in that mission. It really penalizes armies without particularly mobile troops or options to make them mobile.
-
The game is not designed too well for KP missions to be a primary mission as some armies are not very killy at all, some armies are way too killy etc. Its why very few events use KP as primary objective.
Keith the missions look solid obviously the fellas will do some testing for you over the next couple of months.
You could argue the same thing with cumulative missions or relic. For example, not every army has troops that can infiltrate or drop pod or whatever onto objectives/relics turn 1, so those armies do have an advantage in those missions.
With cumulative missions, not every army can reasonably get scoring units onto an objective for the end of each opponent turn. I'd recommend having either fast attack or heavy (or both, still yielding an extra VP) scoring in that mission. It really penalizes armies without particularly mobile troops or options to make them mobile.
So make sure you score at least your two and contest the center. Then kill stuff to win by KP.
-
I don't really think it works that way, but I'll certainly play the mission and try it out. Just offering a suggestion to make that one less harsh for slower armies with squishier troops.
-
I think SOMETHING should have killpoints primary. 1) it's in the main book, 2) it's a balancer against MSU.
-
I think SOMETHING should have killpoints primary. 1) it's in the main book, 2) it's a balancer against MSU.
Two missions use kill points.
-
I don't really think it works that way, but I'll certainly play the mission and try it out. Just offering a suggestion to make that one less harsh for slower armies with squishier troops.
I appreciate all feedback. But it sounds like you are asking for a mission to help armies with slow, weak troops. I am afraid that armies like that are just bad.
-
I don't really think it works that way, but I'll certainly play the mission and try it out. Just offering a suggestion to make that one less harsh for slower armies with squishier troops.
I appreciate all feedback. But it sounds like you are asking for a mission to help armies with slow, weak troops. I am afraid that armies like that are just bad.
I don't believe codexes are designed around being able to hold the same objective the whole game. That would favor immobile gunline armies that can blow you off yours while castling up on their own. This mission is unlike any book mission and I think it's a good idea to keep that in mind.
Someone could score points for 1 or 2 turns and contest or leaf-blower objectives for the rest and that's pretty much the game (and not every army is able to do this), which I think is a little silly. When I played this mission at Templecon in 2013 my game was over on turn 2 because I had no way to catch up on the victory points, and I feel like it's poor mission design when that can be the case.
-
Being able to hold the same objective all game favors marines, orks, blob squads and the like. It disfavors Tau, eldar. Not a criticism, just a comment.
-
I don't really think it works that way, but I'll certainly play the mission and try it out. Just offering a suggestion to make that one less harsh for slower armies with squishier troops.
I appreciate all feedback. But it sounds like you are asking for a mission to help armies with slow, weak troops. I am afraid that armies like that are just bad.
I don't believe codexes are designed around being able to hold the same objective the whole game. That would favor immobile gunline armies that can blow you off yours while castling up on their own. This mission is unlike any book mission and I think it's a good idea to keep that in mind.
Someone could score points for 1 or 2 turns and contest or leaf-blower objectives for the rest and that's pretty much the game (and not every army is able to do this), which I think is a little silly. When I played this mission at Templecon in 2013 my game was over on turn 2 because I had no way to catch up on the victory points, and I feel like it's poor mission design when that can be the case.
That mission has generally gotten me the most positive comments both in 2012 and 2013. If you notice, this year I changed it and gave you an option on how to better keep up this year. Besides, it doesn't say anywhere that you need to keep the same unit on the same objective.... there are many cases where you wouldn't want to do that.
Also, please explain to me how a gunline blowing all your units away is somehow worse in that mission than any other?
Your comment also implies that GW designs codexs and book missions with each other in mind, which I find highly dubious.
Also, this is only one mission. Most lists are not good at all missions.
What list were you running last year?
EDIT: I will definitely consider fast attack/heavy support scoring in this mission.
-
All missions are on a 20/0 sliding scale. Each VP that you win by increases your score by one, and decreases your opponent's score by one. Equal VPs results in a 10-10 draw.
Does this mean that each player starts each game with a "score"of 10, and it's then modified by the number of VPs he scores minus the number of VPs his opponent scores?
For example:
In missions 1 if I score: 1 Objective (4 points) + Relic (5 points) + Line Breaker (1 point) [10 points total]
And my opponent scores: First Blood (1 Point)
That our scores will be: Chase = 10 (starting) + 4 (objective) + 5 (relic) + 1 (line breaker) - 1 (oppoenets first blood) = 19
Opponent = 10 (starting) + 1 (first blood) - 10 (Chase's points) = 1
Caps at 20 and 0?
-
Good question chase.
For each player, start at 10, and take your VPs, subtract your opponents VPs, and add to 10.
so in your example, 10VPs - 1VP = 9 +10 = 19BP, your opponent has 1VP-10VP = -9 VP + 10 = 1BP.
So you would win 19-1.
-
Cool, I like that. Seems easy enough. Weights big wins and small wins. Shouldn't really be any ties after 5 rounds.
-
I think I can actually go to Templecon this year. So excited.
-
Sooo Keith... the question I'm sure you are looking forward to... what's gonna be legal for Templecon this year?
-
Sooo Keith... the question I'm sure you are looking forward to... what's gonna be legal for Templecon this year?
He's probably working on it. I emailed him earlier this week with a similar question and he hasn't got back to me, which is not ordinary.
-
I can asure you it is being discussed in detail :)
-
I like the missions, but can I ask a quick question about the general rules? Why no Mysterious Objectives? I've generally found that they add a positive dimension to the game, particularly in that two of them help non-flyer-having-armies deal with flyers. Not that flyers are the scariest thing nowadays, but I'm really curious about this particular restriction.
-
I will second that I generally like mysterious objectives, too. (but not mysterious terrain, those are just awful)
-
I'll tell you what, lets do one mission at the primer with mysterious objectives, If that goes over well, we'll add it to one or two of the missions for the GT.
-
cool!
-
Personally I don't like the random nature of the mysterious objectives. It potentially makes a game very one sided at no fault to the players at all.
Example: I was playing in a tournament that had 5 mysterious objectives (2 on each side and one in the middle). Both he and I had flyers. Neither of us had any skyfire weapons. Pretty even match and we were both pretty happy about it because we had both played a couple of very one sided matches before this round. But when mysterious objectives were rolled up my opponent got 2 that gave his units on the objectives skyfire. I got one that exploded every round and something else that didn't do much for me. My opponent was able to blow up my flyers just because he was lucky enough to roll skyfire on the chart. I couldn't do much against his because he killed my flyers with troops that were meant to sit on objectives.
While that "idea" behind mysterious objectives are not all terrible and I generally like randomness games - in a 40k tournament setting I'd rather have as little "random" stuff happen that can effect the game like this as possible. If 2 players at the same skill level playing a similar army play it comes down to the random lucky role to see who wins. In that case you might as well just roll off before you even set up and whoever rolls higher wins outright and you can skip the game itself.
-
Personally I don't like the random nature of the mysterious objectives. It potentially makes a game very one sided at no fault to the players at all.
Example: I was playing in a tournament that had 5 mysterious objectives (2 on each side and one in the middle). Both he and I had flyers. Neither of us had any skyfire weapons. Pretty even match and we were both pretty happy about it because we had both played a couple of very one sided matches before this round. But when mysterious objectives were rolled up my opponent got 2 that gave his units on the objectives skyfire. I got one that exploded every round and something else that didn't do much for me. My opponent was able to blow up my flyers just because he was lucky enough to roll skyfire on the chart. I couldn't do much against his because he killed my flyers with troops that were meant to sit on objectives.
While that "idea" behind mysterious objectives are not all terrible and I generally like randomness games - in a 40k tournament setting I'd rather have as little "random" stuff happen that can effect the game like this as possible. If 2 players at the same skill level playing a similar army play it comes down to the random lucky role to see who wins. In that case you might as well just roll off before you even set up and whoever rolls higher wins outright and you can skip the game itself.
This is typically why I don't include them. But one mission from a local event where almost 100% of locals will be at the GT is not a bad testing ground.
-
Well, I don't much like randomness either, and 6th edition is just random as hell generally, which I think is part of certain level of unrest already. But as Ragnar pointed out, the main reason to include them is so there's just a bit more skyfire out there.
Maybe instead of random, just make it so in one mission, each side gets one skyfire nexus?
-
Maybe instead of random, just make it so in one mission, each side gets one skyfire nexus?
This is probably better.
-
Taking the randomness out of it actually would help - still give the objectives some sort of effect(skyfire/exploding/etc) but make sure its mirrored so that each player has to deal with the same issues on each side.
Here is a really bad sketch of what I mean. Objectives are the numbers below set up in a grid on the table.
| 1 2 |
| 3 |
| 2 1 |
#1 would be one effect.....say skyfire
#2 would be something else
#3 i would be explodes.
The above is just an example, but does something like this make sense/is fair/etc? You could even hide what the objectives are - put a marker upside down with at number on it that isn't revealed until a unit takes that position at which point you can roll to see what comes up, but players would know that the grid is set up this way. That would at the least keep it slightly "mysterious". It could also still change the dynamic of the board mid game which can be fun and interesting, but not totally one sided.
It's really the potential for onesidedness that gets me. The rules as written from the book hypothetically make it possible for one "lucky" player to always roll the "explodes" objective which can totally screw them over.
-
I would say this would work if your sole intent was to nerf flyers. Which may be fun in some instances but unless your specifically going for an alternate ajenda your better off just not using mysterious objectives and count them as normal.
-
I like mysterious objectives as they are. I think its silly to give everybody a free SKyfire Nexus, if you want to shoot up then bring flyers or units with skyfire or allies with either. Everybody has options, its your choice not to bring them. Also keep in mind there's only a 1/6 chance of getting that particular ability on an objective. I'd rather get the +1 to cover or reroll 1's when shooting objective, can I choose that instead of skyfire?
-
Just to clarify - I wasn't at all suggesting giving everyone free skyfire or trying to nerf anything. I was talking more about finding ways to keep the objectives more balanced for each player.
-
I think if you have fixed objective placement for each mission, its as balanced as it can be. Both players have an equal chance of rolling each mysterious choice.
-
I agree about keeping them more balanced. The negative with mysterious objectives is that they can help one player and do nothing for the other.
as long as they are equal I don't think it matter much.
-
I think if you have fixed objective placement for each mission, its as balanced as it can be. Both players have an equal chance of rolling each mysterious choice.
so you like heads or tails to determine advantage? Sounds legit.
-
I think if you have fixed objective placement for each mission, its as balanced as it can be. Both players have an equal chance of rolling each mysterious choice.
so you like heads or tails to determine advantage? Sounds legit.
Pretty sure you have less than a 50% chance to get Skyfire, and that 2/3 of the objectives options are helpful. It's almost like we're playing a game of chance here.
-
I think if you have fixed objective placement for each mission, its as balanced as it can be. Both players have an equal chance of rolling each mysterious choice.
so you like heads or tails to determine advantage? Sounds legit.
Pretty sure you have less than a 50% chance to get Skyfire, and that 2/3 of the objectives options are helpful. It's almost like we're playing a game of chance here.
What his statement meant, specifically, is that generally one side will get better objectives than the other, and your chances of winning out on that are 50%.
I would say this would work if your sole intent was to nerf flyers. Which may be fun in some instances but unless your specifically going for an alternate ajenda your better off just not using mysterious objectives and count them as normal.
Yeah, but keep in mind that theoretically, flyers were introduced with the idea 1/6 of objectives would be a skyfire nexus. That's all assuming GW knew what they were doing, which is not a statement I am prepared to make, but you can't say it's "nerfing flyers" as if it wasn't a factor that was supposed to be in there in the first place.
THis all, frankly, mattered more a year ago, when there much less new codexes with skyfire available.
-
My opinion prolly doesn't count for much since I'm not going... but... I will share a lil' secret. Whenever there are mysterious objectives in the mission, I usually ask my opponent if he wants to do a gentleman's agreement to ignore them, since I've never once had everyone successfully remember all the mysterious effects throughout a game. The opponent has agreed to this in all cases but 1.
-
I think if you have fixed objective placement for each mission, its as balanced as it can be. Both players have an equal chance of rolling each mysterious choice.
so you like heads or tails to determine advantage? Sounds legit.
Pretty sure you have less than a 50% chance to get Skyfire, and that 2/3 of the objectives options are helpful. It's almost like we're playing a game of chance here.
What his statement meant, specifically, is that generally one side will get better objectives than the other, and your chances of winning out on that are 50%.
You also have a 50% chance of winning the game too, in theory. I don't see how this is any different but one of many factors.
-
randomly giving one opponent and advantage in a mission is not a good idea.
Like when one player gets to place 1 more objective than the other.
Silly.
-
That's like saying long range gunline armies shouldn't have an advantage against assault or shortrange armies in Hammer and Anvil. It's just another part of the game.
-
Just something to keep in mind. These rules "most likely" we not meant to be used in tournament settings....just like all of the other rules that we usually ignore - like the mysterious terrain, Archotech Artifacts or Unique Terrain, etc. They are meant more for more casual play. If a TO wants to use mysterious objectives, then why not throw in all the other random crap that is in the books as well? (I'm not saying at all that this is what I want to happen).
-
I'm fine with including them or leaving them out, I'm not so keen on modifying them.
-
That's like saying long range gunline armies shouldn't have an advantage against assault or shortrange armies in Hammer and Anvil. It's just another part of the game.
They're not a part of the game if we don't want them to be, frankly. "It's how GW wrote it" is merely a data point, not a defense.
-
That's like saying long range gunline armies shouldn't have an advantage against assault or shortrange armies in Hammer and Anvil. It's just another part of the game.
That is by design. Other missions favor other armies.
Building in a random chance advantage? Stupid.
You can tell the difference right?
-
That's like saying long range gunline armies shouldn't have an advantage against assault or shortrange armies in Hammer and Anvil. It's just another part of the game.
That is by design. Other missions favor other armies.
Building in a random chance advantage? Stupid.
You can tell the difference right?
I would call this a design, too. I'm fine with including them or leaving them out, but I don't really like the idea of giving free skyfire or +1 cover or whatever to everyone. If you're going to modify them, maybe just throw out the GW chart completely and say it gives the unit holding the objective one free single die reroll per use each player or game turn, just come up with a new mechanic and give it to them all.
And while you say stupid, I say fun. I also want Lords of War and Stronghold Assault stuff in the game all the time, too, so we probably have some ideological differences there.
-
Keith - can you tell us what the scoring rubric for the painting part of the event is going to be?
-
The primer event is going to use this:
(http://www5.picturepush.com/photo/a/13976683/640/13976683.jpg) (http://picturepush.com/public/13976683)