Author Topic: Mission Design Discussion - Draft 1  (Read 4131 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Kirby

  • Pink Overlord
  • Administrator
  • Regular
  • *****
  • Posts: 60
    • View Profile
    • 3++ is the new black
« Last Edit: October 31, 2012, 12:29:50 AM by Kirby »
- Kirby.

Offline Majinmonkey

  • Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 68
    • View Profile
Re: Mission Design Discussion - Draft 1
« Reply #1 on: November 09, 2012, 09:45:36 AM »
Gonna test some of these missions this weekend.

What point values would you recommend/would provide the most useful data?

Terrain setup NOVA style?
« Last Edit: November 09, 2012, 10:15:28 AM by Majinmonkey »

Offline Majinmonkey

  • Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 68
    • View Profile
Re: Mission Design Discussion - Draft 1
« Reply #2 on: November 12, 2012, 07:49:29 AM »
Ready! Aim! Fire! Is a great take on the big guns never tire. The problem with big guns is it gives no incentive to not huddle in the corner and turtle up, since you can put the objectives where you want them. RAF is better because although you can turtle up near the objective, it is on the small corner of the diagonal deployment, so you don't have much room to really support yourself, you just can't fit. At the same time, if you try to fit in that corner, you are gonna be right near your opponent, hugging the center line. It makes heavy support scoring while requiring mobility on their part to be functional at doing it.

I also played the kill points with table corners game, and I think the kill points should grant a set number of victory points to the player who got the most kill points. Some armies are just not able to play kill points very well, and table corners doesn't help much, in fact they have to hang back to ensure the can match their opponents table corner points.

If each corner was worth 2 vp's, and getting the most kill points earned 3 VP's, I could see it being a better game when one player is for example playing dark eldar.

Offline Kirby

  • Pink Overlord
  • Administrator
  • Regular
  • *****
  • Posts: 60
    • View Profile
    • 3++ is the new black
Re: Mission Design Discussion - Draft 1
« Reply #3 on: November 26, 2012, 03:03:05 AM »
Terrain is much less LoS blocking than NOVA from what I've seen - 25% coverage though and I prefer at least 2-3 LoS blockers depending upon their size (generally big enough to fit a chimera at least behind).

1850 points is 3++con but I'd love to see if these work from anywhere 1500 to 2000.

I think keeping KP as is is fine are perhaps bringing the one margin back - we saw in 5th that there was a certain balancing factor here with a difference of 1 KP but then we are bringing in the secondaries which could offset that anyway (which is the point). TQ will likely need to be moved up to 2 VP per quarter.

Full KP as a secondary though seems to be overshadowing the primary in Mission 2 - might cap that or do as you suggested Magin (i.e. you win KP you get 3 VP) to make sure more focus is placed on the objectives.
- Kirby.