Monday, May 21, 2012

Second Mission Choice

Posted by Shadowvast on 24. January 2011 08:35

Here it is, hot off the presses!  This is the second of five missions we will be posting for your gaming approval. This one adds some deployment variation. Let us know what you think once you have tried it out!

 

 

Mission 4.Origins.doc (14.79 kb)

 

 

 

Comments: 6

Filed Under: Gaming | Planning

Tags:

Comments (6) -

  • Mandrill

    Mandrill said,

    Could you post these missions in a simple .doc or .txt format?


  • Shadowvast

    Shadowvast said,

    Duly corrected sir. Im not sure why it changed the format.


  • Matt Wendling

    Matt Wendling said,

    Is the table divided in half lengthwise?  Probably should be specific.

    I suggest rewording the deployment zones to be more clear -- maybe look at the 5th edition missions and use the same terminology and wording (not necessarily the same deployment zones).  For example, the book calls the center "the center" not "the middle".   The middle could be a line -- the center is an exact point.

    Again, are you certain that forces should be placed BEFORE objectives?

    In both missions, I assume that the player who deploys his forces first, also deploys the first objective?

    Beware the word "can".  Better wording might be "each player MUST place one objective".  That is, unless you want to allow 2 objective games, if a player elects not to place his objective.

    I think this is basically the same mission as the 1st one posted, except deployment zones are the table divided lengthwise instead of by quarter.  Also, 3 objectives instead of 5.  Everything else is the same, right?


  • Shadowvast

    Shadowvast said,

    yes, very close. your deployment is a modified Dawn of war. You can deploy anywhere in your half of the table assuming it is within 12" of a board edge.

    Objectives are always placed ahead of deployment. They happen to be written after deployment here. I will clean that up for game day.  Good catch!

    There are always 3 objectives in this mission, one at the table center, and the other two are place-able, one to each player. Pretty clear IMHO.


  • Tom

    Tom said,

    After playing through this mission I find the objectives of opportunity should not just give out extra objectives.  It makes the game too easy to tie especially when the mission has an odd number of objectives already.  A better idea would be to give out bonus points to your battle score.  This would also give people who end up not possibly able to win with the ability to at least gain a few points by securing a objective of opportunity and thus allow for more flexibility and spreading out the entire field by a few points.  Give 3 bonus points for each objective of opportunity thus if someone loses without holding an objective they receive x points for the other tasks they succeeded at.

    Also if you secure an objective of opportunity you automatically cause your opponent to not be able to get the full 50 points since they automatically cause you to have an objective and to get full points your opponent cannot control any objective at all.


  • Shadowvast

    Shadowvast said,

    I see where you are coming from, but the objectives of opportunity can be scored by both sides, not just the first one to get it. This means that despite only having three objectives on the field  you need to worry about your opponent keeping you out of a max point massacre.

    This is intended as an early to mid day mission, but remember there are quite a few I am going to post, and then we will vote for the top missions. These are suggestions, and are not set in concrete yet.


Add comment




  Country flag
biuquote
  • Comment
  • Preview
Loading