3++con Missions – Draft 1

This is going to me mission week for 3++ it looks like… We’ve already discussed some of the concepts for the 6th edition missions, deployments and objectives in previous posts (linked so yes, you can access them! I hope…). I’ve got several more posts lined up which are going to look at some concepts which seem to be consistently turning up from my observations and playing so far but for now, we’ll start with my proposed missions for 3++con.

THESE ARE DRAFT MISSIONS. I’d love it if we didn’t need to make any changes to any of these missions as it means less effort on my part and more play testing data can be gathered. I’m realistic though and would be highly surprised if no changes were necessary, even if they are the smallest in nature (i.e. assuming the missions themselves are okay, the values of each concept might be changed). The missions can be downloaded as a PDF here. Below is text about each mission looking at the reasoning behind the choices and what the missions are hopefully forcing you to do.

The aim here has been to make as few changes as possible from the basic 6th edition missions without leaving in potential significant issues (i.e. the potential relationship between secondaries, the Relic mission and who goes first) whilst ensuring missions are fun, different and challenging to make an army for which does well at all of them whilst determining a victor (i.e. no draws). We want to emphasis what 6th edition is emphasising, not what we think should be emphasised. And of course fix what Games Workshop failed to address (to a degree at least).

With that in mind there are five primary objective missions and one primary kill point mission. Kill points are also used as a secondary and in some instances, modified kill points are utilised as secondaries as outlined in the 6th edition missions. The victor of each mission is also decided by the total number of Victory Points accumulated. If each player has an EQUAL number of Victory Points, the player with the most Victory Points determined by the primary is the winner. If both players have equal Victory Points determined by the Primary, the player with most Victory Points from the secondary is the winner. If both players have equal Victory Points determined by the Secondary, the player with the most Victory Points from the Tertiary is the winner. If all else fails, I’m not sure what else to do to determine a victor – perhaps 5th edition Victory Points or “Points Destroyed.” Essentially we are looking to foster a system which encourages doing well at the mission as a whole but with systems in place to help determine a victor if a draw on the whole system is identified.

This still allows players to try and focus on different elements which their army might be better at (i.e. 5th edition NOVA tier system) BUT, the player needs to draw across the ENTIRE mission rather than just the primary and/or secondary to move the mission to a level where they believe they have an advantage. This makes it more difficult to do and therefore hopefully fosters greater tactical diversity, mental challenges and different games upon individuals and importantly, requires individuals to utilise an army list which is flexible in the way it wins games.

My main concern so far with this system is the Tertiary Victory Conditions – they are the Secondaries outlined in the 6th edition missions. Not that I think these are an issue where there are many more Victory Points to gain but this could potentially reduce their significant in determining overall winners. In standard 6th edition games they are quite often THE determining factor if players are drawing on the main victory condition. However, I still think this means they can be the deciding factor for those very close games where one or two Victory Points will determine the winner – it just means if there is a draw across the entire mission, they are the 3rd step down. I feel this is okay but still want them to be important parts of the game – 6th edition has made them so.

So, before I actually give a quick blurb about each mission, here’s what I want from YOU (PS I like CAPS lately – maybe it’s because I know people DON’T READ THE DAMN MISSIONS).

  • Theoretical feedback – where do you think issues might come up.
  • Applied feedback – you know, theorise and then play games using these missions. What issues did you notice/not notice. Relate back to your theory or others’ theories.
  • Potential changes – I would greatly prefer these came after actually playing the game but how you think potential issues could be addressed or how greater diversity could be brought into the missions (I’ve done six but having a packet of twelve for more diversity isn’t a bad thing either).
  • Kudos – if I actually did a nice job, tell me. Please :P.
  • Anything else you can think of – let us know. I think NOVA and FOB both changed the 6th edition landscape quite significantly. There’s nothing wrong with this and both those tournaments are well run but we want to keep the changes to the minimum – minimise the cries of “NOT 40k!!!One1!!!1one1!!” etc. We want to be as open and transparent as possible.

To provide feedback you may use this post or this part of the 3++ forums (which are not fully integrated into the 3++ website but will be soon, you have our apologies for the delays in getting everything setup. Again) or you can just e-mail me, etc. Remember though, talking in a public forum can lead to someone else having an idea, etc. so I would recommend you do that please.

Again, I stress these are draft missions and we could see some completely different missions by the time 3++con rolls around. Feedback will make these what we want them to be so get feedbacking please!

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

18 responses to 3++con Missions – Draft 1

If your primary goal is closest to 6th rules you nailed it. I can't say they're exactly my cup of tea, but a far sight better than what we've seen thus far. Your solution to the tier problem I think is more elegant than Nova's, but with time comes experience so I can't blame them. I also don't think table quarters as Nova executed them this year are tenable, if you want to keep using quarters either everything but zooming fliers should count or larger changes need to be made.

Some quick points on first read, some of them just typos:
– Mission 1: Looks like a nice balance on first read. Focusing entirely on the Relic is pretty much guaranteed to lose to someone who's also keeping a close eye on the Secondaries and Tertiaries.
– Mission 2: You switched the dimensions in the text box when describing where to put the Objectives. One question: Are KP capped at 6 (fitting with the total cap of 21), or can you rack up more KP than that if you're down on other Objectives? Other than that, this one's a classic setup, and I see no reason why it shouldn't continue to be so.
– Mission 4: Says 21 VP possible, but I'm only seeing 13. 6 from Primaries, 4 from Secondaries, 3 from Tertiaries.
– Mission 5: Thank you for not forcing randomization any time a Unit is split across Quarters. Also, what's the Points total for these Games going to be? If it's 2K, maybe consider going to 2 VP per Quarter held. Maybe. I'm really not sure what final scores in KP Games end up looking like at high end Tournaments, but it feels like there's the possibility for the Primary to really dominate this one. You've got way more experience than me here, tho.
– Mission 6: Again, says 21 VP possible, but I only count 15. Also, it says that Fast Attack Units are Scoring. Shouldn't that be Heavy Support, since you're using Heavy Metal as the Mission Special Rule?
– Tie-breakers: In all cases, if the Players are tied on total VPs, Primary VPs, and Secondary VPs, they're also going to be tied on Tertiary VPs, so that last Tie-breaker is pointless. Honestly, I'm pretty sure it's impossible to come up with a Tie-breaker system for 40K that has no possibility whatsoever of a Draw AND doesn't basically come down to a Roll-off, but old-school VPs are pretty damn hard to Draw on. I like them as a last-ditch Tie-breaker.

Well, one tie breaker idea I've seen before is to make First Blood the tie breaker instead of a VP. While it's still favorable to the player going first, exactly one player will earn it each game.

Ignore type-o's… And the 21 VP was a copy paste job so is wrong on the ones you pointed out.

Mission 1 – good
Mission 2 – Diagram is correct. KP are not capped.
Mission 4 – again, type-o my bad.
Mission 5 – I'd hope they could be used from anything from 1500-2000. The values may be something which needs to be changed indeed. I'd say in usual games, depending upon the armies, 50-67% of available kill points are earned. 1850 is what the tournament will be though.
Mission 6 – VP are wrong again :P. It should be heavy Support.

Ya I'm not sure about the placement of the Tertiary – I might combine them with the Secondary so they aren't neglected a little bit and I didn't really run the math but it should have been obvious you can't win on them if you drew on everything else :P.

That way I could intro old school VPs for deciding draws and pushes the importance of those special rules back up a little bit.

so i looked at the pdf and the diagrams of the table layouts gave me a terrible flashback to high school maths lessons wityh all the graphs.

dont worry, im going to read it properly too.

EDIT: just noticed the measurements are the wrong way round in the diagrams for missions 1 and 2. it says "Place two more objectives worth three Victory Points each 18” infrom the long table edge and 12” in from the short table edge" In the diagram, these measurements are reversed. same happens for the mission 2 diagram as well.

I'm certain this isn't the write place to be posting this, so apologies, but I can't see any other way to ask…

Since the site's redesign, I can't seem to be able to look at old articles. I can scroll down a page to see perhaps the most recently posted 8 articles or so, but there's no way to 'go further back' to find things published a few weeks ago.

Am I doing something wrong? Or is the redesign incomplete?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it impossible to tie for total victory point and go all the way to tertiary for the tie break? Total is equal, primary is equal, secondary is equal, tert. HAS to be equal..

I think these missions punish a lot of armies who don't necessarily want to be in midfield early in the game – they want to hug flanks before moving out later on in the game via outflank, reserves or fast movers. Because so many of the objectives want to move people into the center it means that armies which are good at taking midfield have all game to get themselves ready and block off any enemy advances. And it means if those more static or fragile armies want to move into position, they leave themselves open to shortrange firefights or CC – DE and Tau and certain IG builds especially.

Now this is able to be worked around by newer armies, but making all or the vast majority of the objectives outside your deployment in at least 3 of the games means a lot of army concepts hit the shelf immediately.

The Relic mission is good though – competitive and still fun. I still laugh at a scoring dreadknight stealing it and teleporting with it though :p

4/5 objective missions out of the rulebook require you to go into midfield anyway. There are ways to deal with this – you don't need to be sitting on objectives all the time (which is one of the issues I have with the bean counter/flag/etc type objective games because that really can hurt armies beyond a strong midfield core).

I guess I'm saying if you are changing up the missions to go with all types of armies, have ones which benefit controlling your zone, ones which benefit going into midfield, ones which benefit going wide/enemy deployment etc.

Hey Kirby!

First off, good luck with your tournament!

Per our conversation, I wanted to toss my 2 cents in this conversation.

We at Frontline Gaming run a lot of events on the West Coast of the USA (many of which are GT level) and we have built up a pretty big reserve of experience on what works, what people like, etc.

In your standard 2hr 15min time frame, we've found 1750 to result in about a 90% completion ration, meaning 9 out of 10 games come to a natural conclusion. That leaves you with 15 minute breaks between rounds, and a comfortable time limit to get 4 rounds in a day.

Secondly, after lots of experimentation, we've found that missions that are as close to those in the book as possible, work best for a number of reasons.

1.) It's what people know and prepare for.
2.) So long as you run multiple missions at the same time, they are actually really balanced.
3.) Simple. You don't have to worry about balancing your own missions, or pissing people off because you missed a loophole.

We run the following pairs: Emperor's Will and Crusade (3 Objectives), The Relic and Big Guns (4 Objectives), and The Scouring and Purge the Alien. We run each pair twice, once with one mission worth more points than the other and vice versa. We also use all 3 book bonus points. Different deployment for each mission combination too, to have as much variety as possible.

We run all 3 book deployments (Hammer and Anvil has no big deal at all).

We find this makes things fair, easy and fun and really mitigates some of the imbalance in straight book missions.

Hope that helps, buddy!

Good luck with your event!

Also, just to be clear, it is a W/L/D system, whoever gets the most points in a game, wins, no battle points. Same amount results in a tie.