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!