Club Championship Question 4 - Missions

[Jack Shrapnel]

Okay, this one is a big one....

Last year I did 15 different missions so every table was different, and offered hopefully something challenging and beyond the norm (tried to keep everything fun and different from a regular tourney).

This meant having to adapt to three scenic tables at the store which kind of have set or dictated terrain (the two apoc tables and the swamp table) which not only was challenging to try and do, but was pretty limited as I had to go with what the table was.

I know that not everyone liked the strange scenarios and there were times that it could really swing a game one way or the other (if you saw the scoring however it really did balance out over the six games)... also it was VERY difficult to account for all various army builds / armies to try and make sure they were balanced (the basis was the Astro scenarios, which I tried to modify to balance some of the REALLY unbalanced parts - ask Tom about playing the Astro missions "as is" and how unbalanced they sometimes are!)

so the big, big question:

Do you want book scenarios or custom scenarios? (please give reasons)

thoughts?

;D

[Hizack]

I say bring back the Baneblade and the Lost patrol missions. From watching the previous tournament I can say those two missions were quite easily the coolest with Lost patrol mission being by far the most interesting.

I mean, you'd probably have to mod the Lost Patrol to not allow a flyer to be the patroling unit as it would likely just fly off the table turn 2 lol. (Even though it makes the most sense for an aircraft to patrol.) Even then I'm not sure how ballanced it would be.

[redshirt2375]

I would have to go with Custom Scenarios.

My reason is that last year, and as you mentioned with the scoring, they tend to level the playing field so that it's really hard to bring a list that would normally dominate everything using the standard missions. Also, I found that most of the scenarios focused a lot more on strategic play and less on massacring your opponent for an auto-win. If I recall correctly, some of the missions you had to play the objectives if you wanted to get full points and tabling your opponent could result in only a minor victory if you didn't.

Also, the custom missions add another level of challenge to the game that you might not get from standard missions, though I will add that from what I've been reading the new standard missions aren't as plain as the old missions were and provide more variety.

[danydaigle24]

I vote custom scenarios by far. I love it and thats a big part of what makes the tournament different and why I have my friend that wants to drive 12h to come.

[thesanityassassin]

Custom by far and away. If designing that many missions seems rough, I can certainly help, I have a bunch of them kicking around my computer, and while they are an edition or two old, they're still good base points. Those custom scenarios MADE that tourney to me, and really awarded well balanced, complete armies over all-or-nothing builds.

[LizardTau]

i loved the custom ones also. It makes it different then just another game of 40k. I will say that although the every table having a different one was cool it was hard to implement. maybe try the we all play the same mission for each game like they did in the last 5th one? not sure how good that would work if we need to use all the tables again like last year's club one but its an idea

[fritzthedwarf]

I'd have to vote custom missions as well. Makes for more interesting situations. As you mentioned, I think it is impossible to perfectly balance scenarios where some armies/builds wont have an advantage of some type over others. So it is doubtful everyone will like all scenarios so I wouldn't worry about it too much unless a pile of people have a problem with one particular one.

[Jack Shrapnel]

lol... okay, custom it is....

did anyone have a real big problem with one of the missions being completely unbalanced?

if so... what was it... why was it unbalanced... and how would you fix it??

[thesanityassassin]

Attacking that wall was pretty brutal....I mean, I know my matchup against Tommy's infantry+arty Guard made it extra painful, but I'd like to know if anyone managed to succeed as the attacker in that one? Given the amount of VERY heavy cover and the requirement to go through the enemy, it seemed far too easy for the defender to simply dig in, go to ground, and ride it out. I even had skimmers to jump the wall and score me some points....can't imagine what I would do if I didn't.
The free bombardment helped a bit, but still, when stuff can drop to a 2+ cover that easily, it only does so much. Flyers in 6th might make some difference, but it's hard to tell at this point.

I've been wracking my brain on an effective scenario for that table for a while and I've still kind of got nothing. Let me keep thinking on it.

[danydaigle24]

I won as attacker but I was Daemon... Me I really hate the temple but Im the only one so I dont care if its back...

[thesanityassassin]

Yeah, Daemons being able to deepstrike in behind the wall would make that much more possible!

I never did play the temple mission, so I can't say anything about it.

I'm honestly not sure about the Attacker/Defender missions in general, but I think knowing that they'll exist will be enough to let me make an army list that can do either. The problem with them, as we've seen in most systems (Remember that Warmachine game Shannon?) is that it's VERY hard to balance an Attacker/Defender mission, even without considering all the armies.

[danydaigle24]

I really enjoy playing attacker/defender because its way different but maybe having 2 scenario maximum like that and in front with the special weird table....

[Jack Shrapnel]

temple was voted favorite mission Dany... I know why you hated it, but that was pure luck on Tommy's part to blindly fire and kill your objective - if your mission was to kill the inquisitor Tommy would have just handed you the whole tournament by doing so... also you guys didn't read the mission first... so that's not the mission's fault (reading the cards as to the possible mission parameters first would have probably changed your tactics right?) Other missions such as the wall mission were heavily favored to your army, so it kind of balanced out right???

I agree, it's very difficult to balance attacker/defender missions... seems like a fair trade to only have a couple of them.... but custom scenarios are not going to be 100% balanced to every combination... just not possible (at least for me to do.... and yes, I have to be the one to come up with them because I'm not playing in the tourney... only fair way to do it...)

[danydaigle24]

Yeah I hated just because we didnt read the cards so I had abosutly no idea what was the misson but with reading the mission would have been good...

[fritzthedwarf]

Yeah I hated the baneblade mission at first because I had misread the card so screwing it up was totally my fault. The mission was fine and I hope it is back in.

Playing nids the only mission I played that I didn't like was the one where you had to start one troop choice on the other side of the board and try to protect it/get it back to your own side because killing it was the objective. My troop choices are all squishy and die easily especially with no support (or synapse issues). I played Dave's necrons, he had first turn, teleported his troops choice back to his table edge so that everything coming on would surround it and easily keep my from getting to it if my army could make it there late in the game, and with his shooting/lightning blasted the crap out of my unit which the remnants died by turn 2 giving him his objective. It was pretty clear before my first turn that the game was lost. Dave is a strong player with a strong list and it can still be fun to play him with my nids but I found the mission decided the game immediately and I was just going thru the motions.

Of course, if most people liked this mission than I will live with it.