Tournament Scenario Discussion

[Scribbles]

Questions and comments go here. Please keep it civil.

[Scott916]

At first glance, most of the missions look good. One thing I would suggest is to make the game continue to turn 6 on a 4+ and end on turn 6 for sure. I think this works out better with the time limits we generally have for tournaments.

The only potential issue I see with any of the missions is that the victory point mission in the second round has considerably more points available than the other two missions. 33 possible in second round vs 25 in the first and 29 in the third. Obviously it's hard to get them all exactly the same, but my recommendation would be to make the primary objective of the second round worth 15 points max rather than 20.

[Gregor_xenos]

Mission "Objectives": Love the idea of the Forcefield Objective. Very New, very hip... at least to me.
Mission "Killbox": Love the VP's!! (much better indicator of win/loss than KP) Also; like the tac bonus... encourages
full use of the FOC.
Mission "Fire Burning": This is AWESOME!! First off 8 objectives of which only 3 will "survive". Then, there are "smokin trees" (Huh, huh.... my WuTang Clan Orks will be pleased) and "Flamin' Terrain" to give Cover and Nightfight. Add in HQ assassination just for kicks. *This is MY favorite mission!*

Overall; Great Job! If your future tourney missions are this promising, I think we all have alot to look forward to.
After alot of thought, I don't agree with Scott about turn 7. (sad face) I think there will be MANY units held in reserve, if not whole armies. This will eat up turns quickly, besides it lends unpredictability to the game.... and hell, we all know this is a game of dice rolling.

Oh... nice spelling of "Scenario" there. - I'm not a spelling Nazi, I just play one on TV.

[Scott916]

Kirby, I would agree with you in a perfect world, but many of our games struggle just to hit turn 5. In my experience, not many people reserve entire armies...I still sometimes get asked if that's even allowed when I do it. Of course, allowing a bit of extra time per game would also solve the problem...though for some reason extending game time seems to cause unrest.

This is starting to look really good though, wish I wasn't going to be covered up with my move next weekend. It will be nice living super-close to PBKW though.

[Gregor_xenos]

Too true Scott... I'm one of those players (when I play Orks). Hate that you wont be playing in the Tourney. Guess I'll have to represent for the both of us. (this may end badly lol)

[Dave]

(01-24-2011 02:53 AM)Scribbles Wrote:  Please keep it civil.

lol

[Scribbles]

(01-25-2011 01:14 AM)Dave Wrote:  

(01-24-2011 02:53 AM)Scribbles Wrote:  Please keep it civil.

lol

Yeah, I know. Wishful thinking right?

Kirby: Fixed the name. I think I get a pass for it being 2 AM when I wrote it. Glad you love the scenarios, makes me feel better about them.

Scott: I understand that there's a lot more points to be gained from the second mission, but I think instead of lowering the points cap for it, it may be more prudent to just remove the secondary and tertiary objectives from it, which would drop it to 23 points.

[rle68]

well for what its worth you show a lot of effort trying to add something new.

1st mission: while i think its skewed in favor of fast moving armies its not bad.

2nd mission: pretty straight forward nothing out of the ordinary

3rd mission: Is there anything you didnt add for the 3rd mission? jesus, you got so much going on its a madhouse
secondly its cover save city and favors all armies not marines. fast movers also have a huge advantage avoiding the terrain and all the objective capturing. and +1 for each corner

Most terrain on fire or smoking 50% chance , 6 different objectives that only 1 will be the actual (again favors fast movers)
and then capturing additional objectives. add night fight d.o.w. on top of that. which if you remember we already ruled that dow goes to round 6 automatically


and my last question did any one actually play test any of these?

[Scott916]

I agree with Rob's assessment of the third mission, it might be a bit much. I think dropping night fight on the first turn or making it less likely for the terrain features to be on fire would be a good idea.

Rob, regarding the first mission: Doesn't every objective-based, especially seize ground-ish mission favor fast armies to some degree? Even playing a three round tournament with one of each mission straight from the rulebook, as an Eldar player, I know the seize ground mission is probably my best chance for max points.

Dickey, I think totally abandoning the first mission's other objectives is a bit harsh and makes the game more one-dimensional. I would just scale the points from 7 or 8 for a draw to 15 or 16 for a win. That would put it roughly in line with the other two. It doesn't need to be exactly the same for each mission, especially since not every point is as easy as the rest to get.

[rle68]

Scott

having a 6" blockade directly in the center when you have to get to the other corner favors fast movers over traditional tanks .. what is it you were always saying about scenarios they should be army neutral?

im not saying its a huge advantage but its one nonetheless

they are not bad overall just need a few tweaks here and there

Dickey
no one ever said points need to be uniform over the different scenarios it helps ( for your own sanity) but it isnt mandatory