Last Year's mission review

[Jack Shrapnel]

In an effort to be the best tournament possible, let's dissect the missions from last year and see what changes need to be made:

www.mediafire.com/?7mlr872cdh7c6gn

The one mission which has been pretty fundamentally adjusted already is Webway assault.

Please see attached for the new version:

[Khalai]

Highest point unit alive, and highest point unit destroyed shouldn't be in the same game. That makes that unit worth 2 points in ALL situations. Should be one opponent and one yours if you want it to be fair. Otherwise seems ok.

[ohgodsnakes]

I'm a little confused about the webway. It says it "must be forcibly torn open", but it also says it's worth nothing if destroyed. Is this in place to allow you to destroy the webway to prevent your opponent from scoring it? (like if they have OBSEC troops around it that you feel you can't kill)

How many points are the other objectives worth? I'm assuming one, but it isn't explicitly stated. The webway itself is worth 2pts, so does that mean if you control 1 objective and the webway, and your opponent controls two objectives, you win with 3 pts?

[voodoo]

Justin – This came up in a review of Echoes of Prospero just now and the price of failure was proposed by me to read “-1 if you have no units with the Troops Battlefield Role remaining at the end of the game”. That way it’s no ObSec or even implicitly “troops” inferring a CAD. If it’s a troop unit in a codex, it counts. That said, it’s a proposal and I’m all ears to other ideas.

Lukas – You’re right, it should have been stated more clearly. Each other objective is worth 1. And yes, the ability to destroy it is because of some slow moving armies vs. fast moving armies or say; someone with no obsec vs. a battle company that can just pull up and park around it. It was made easier to break this year and was changed to award points for holding rather than giving points for feeding HQ units into it.

[thesanityassassin]

I had thought we had decided to remove the Price of Failure penalties from the missions all together to discourage "insult to injury" situations? So many of them are things like "lose your Warlord" or "score no objectives" that really easily turn a 3 into a 0 if you're playing an army that badly outclasses you. I'm not sure how much that would effect differential on the top tables though, so maybe it needs to stay for scoring purposes.

I just know that a 3 for losing becoming a 5 because you accomplished some secondaries feels way better than one turning in to a 0 because your opponent tabled you to deny points.

[Jack Shrapnel]

Price of failure is still a thing. I realize that getting rid of this had been proposed by someone last year, however it is still very valuable with respect to 90%+ of all games (the ones not max point for one and 0 for another)

believe it or not, someone getting a full out zero in a game is quite rare.

Plus as I've said, tabling does not deny points (unless expressly in a price of failure) NOR does it necessarily net your opponent a win as the game immediately ends in that case.

but if you see missions where the price of failure is too easily achieved, please point out the missions and I can look at adjusting where needed.

EDIT: I said "quite rare" however felt the need to actually check this... last year 11 games resulted in a zero for a player. There were 204 games played throughout the weekend.... so approximately 5% of games.... weirdly enough HALF of those occurred in the same round... round three of day one... weird eh? 

[Jack Shrapnel]

Updated Echoes of Prospero - new mission for this year.

[Jack Shrapnel]

Dangerous Intelligence... the second of the THREE new missions for this year

[danny1995]

Do the falling heavens count as shooting attacks (wondering for my orks and their KFF)

[voodoo]

Dangerous Intelligence

I understand why the templates have Barrage, it’s something falling from incredible heights; however, a game effect having the ability to not only double out most infantry models but also ignore cover seems way too powerful.

Case and point, the vents in Friendly Fire are a fixed point that can be avoided and are at best AP3; having an AP3/AP2 blast that your opponent places (with ignore cover) makes it even more punishing. I’d vote to remove Barrage and include a rule that they scatter as if it was a zooming flyer doing a crash and burn; or remove barrage and force them to always scatter even if a hit is rolled (eg. follow the arrow on the hit die).

[Jack Shrapnel]

- they would be a blast or template so KFF would affect it.

- they are barrage, but not ignore cover (other than the flame template version) and scatter with no BS mitigation (so already always scatter unless a hit is rolled). Blasts don't ignore cover. Barrage just ignores intervening cover. You sit in cover you're fine.

also if someone is landing a blast on you, they've given you an objective.... so the primary mission

and Look out Sir can be taken vs. barrage templates, so what exactly is at risk of being doubled out by a full scatter small blast that doesn't ignore cover?

The only non scattering template is the end one, which is AP-

Don't see it being an issue... especially as each player gets to control a blast per turn so it's completely fair to both sides.

[voodoo]

I checked, Barrage blasts will ignore cover so long as the center of the blast originates in the piece of terrain offering the cover.

If a target is partially obscured from the firer by models from a third unit (models not from the firer’s unit, or from the target unit), it receives a 5+ cover save in the same way as if it was behind terrain. Similarly, if a model fires through the gaps between models in an intervening unit, the target is in cover, even if it is completely visible to the firer. Note that this does not apply if the shots go over the unit, either because the firer has an elevated position or is firing a Barrage weapon, rather than through it.

To determine whether a unit wounded by a Barrage weapon is allowed a cover save, and when determining Wound allocation, always assume the shot is coming from the centre of the blast marker, instead of from the firing model. Hits against vehicles are always resolved against their side armour.


I do see the argument for them giving you an objective if they land a blast on your unit, I’d still push to remove Barrage though. Just my personal opinion.

[raceygaming]

I wrote the mission as just blast in the first place. The only reason it was changed is in the first place was to more easier determine which model was picked up when it landed in a unit.
Also as per barrage the S9 becomes a little scarier to armour as barrage hits the side, letting people feel like going for a tank if they need it.

In our tests when we used barrage it did seem to unbalance any game but if people would like to play test with blast vs barrage and give more feed back we can see how it plays out.

[voodoo]

Usurpinghook and I are having a game tomorrow night, we'll give it a try and post our findings.

[shadow0908]

looks like an interesting scenario for sure but the ignores cover is going to be difficult to determine for sure.