todd is nearly a year old, and while i'll be continuing on my masters degree in the spring, i'll be able to make more time for playing soon.
thing is, i haven't gotten to play a single game of 7th. but i've had plenty of time to read up online, and many people have offered opinions plus and minus about the Maelstrom missions.
what i've been wondering is about missions. ideally, i'd love to join a campaign, but i haven't seen a 40k campaign that ran regularly ever when i've been around to play in it. still, my homebound brain has come up with some serious oddities and impulses regarding gameplay.
firstoff, i've been struck with an odd desire to play Cities of Death and Planetstrike -- or at least games along those lines.
second, i'd like to come up with a list of balanced scenarios in order to have a wider range of types of games to play -- ones with different goals, much like the MoW missions.
third, i'd like to compile all these into a well-structured notebook (i'm even willing to do it) to be placed in-store for people to use when they want an interesting sort of game.
fourth, given that the majority of objectives are "take x objective" i'd like to compile a list of alternates that can be chosen
examples of types of entries:
1. focused Maelstrom mission
players choose three objective cards. once both have drawn, they get to keep one face-down, they get to place one face-up, and the third goes into the center of the table. cards are then put away and no new ones are drawn.
the face-down one is worth normal points each time it is achieved, and is revealed at the end of the game. the face-up one is worth double points each time it is achieved. the cards in the middle of the table are worth normal points to either player when they are achieved.
this is to mimic how, in real situations, the goal is often not to neutralize the opponent but to achieve a goal that is easier if the opponent is neutralized -- something has to be communicated via the comms array, something needs to ship out before the airstrip is destroyed, someone needs to be neutralized and they are currently exposed.
2. as above, only all are worth normal, and when achieved they are replaced. this would be like a watered-down version of above, and more like a standard MoW.
3. take and hold / king of the hill
defender must choose a certain portion (like, half) of their army to leave in permanent reserve.
defender then sets up in the center area of the board, in terrain, where the objectives are clustered. attacker sets up on the short board edge. defender gets points for holding the objectives. attackers causes them to lose points by claiming/contesting the center objective, getting first blood, killing their warlord, or achieving a randomly-chosen event (such as kill 30 infantry in one round, win a challenge with the warlord, etc). reserves never come in. eventually, they are massacred. points are also earned for how long they last. if the defenders wipe the table clean of the attackers they auto-win.
then, switch. same scenario is played. winner earns the most points as defender.
this would be to give equal sides opportunity on assault and defense, making sure that both players have to have a certain amount of balance within their armies in order to be able to achieve the proper goals. what's more, both players can customize how their defensive play will pan out -- it's essentially a no-win situation that gains points for how well you lose.
4. space hulk hangar
one long edge, for 8", is outside the ship. there is a hole (either a hangar door or an actual hole) in the hull. it leads to a large central area with smaller areas feeding off from it. the main corridor extends to the short board edges, and is the deployment zone for both players (20" from said edge).
objectives are hidden in the smaller areas. tank traps, low ceilings, narrow corridors, debris, and the like separate these areas off from the main area.
flyers must start outside, and may only enter via the hole. superheavies, big walkers (anything taller than a landraider -- so riptides, Gk baby-carriers, Eldar WK, Contemptors, monstrous creatures, etc) cannot fit in the narrow corridors. scoring occurs as normal... except that objectives can only be scored on twice. after that they are used up, and the units would have to move through the central killing area to get to a new one, risking slaughter by all those larger units just waiting to have something to shoot at...
***
this is just a start, and all are open to feedback. these are also the kinds of things i'd love to see in a narrative campaign... which, admittedly, i'm more a fan of than tournaments anyway.
Sunday, November 9, 2014
Tournament Proposal: Doctrines
a "doctrine" tournament.
-every player starts with three Build Points
-every player starts also with a primary detachment, consisting of one HQ, one fast slot, one heavy slot, and one elite slot. troops are optional at six slots.
players can receive up to two extra build points by including 4 (+1) or 6 (+2) troops slots. additionally, if agreed upon beforehand, including certain unit choices (the never-used ones from certain codices) can add another point, but never more than 5 total (so only 2 troops for a chaos army, but adding in mutilators, or warptalons, and you can get extra points... but again, it would be up to the TO and any relevant board to determine what would be included)
points are used to...
-unlock extra slots (one more HQ, two more Elite/Heavy/Fast)
-add a duplicate non-troop unit (but cannot be spent for a third)
-add a flyer
-unlock a LoW slot
-take a superheavy
-take a new detachment
-take a psyker
-take a FW unit
-take a certain TO-agreed-upon list of wargear, units, etc (book of screamerstar, weapon of cheesemongering, rpitide, etc)
-optionally, can be required for including a named character
thus...
* if i wanted to field a Baneblade, i'd be able to... but it'd cost two of my points (one to open the LoW slot, one for being a superheavy).
* including an assassin would cost me one to open up the detachment.
* including a Contemptor would cost one (plus a second if i already had used my heavy slot).
* two Librarians would cost me 3 points (one for the second open HQ slot, one each for the two psykers).
* a Storm Eagle would be two points (one for the FW source, one for being a flyer) plus one if i need an additional heavy slot for it to fill). similarly, a Vulture would be two. a Marauder would be three (flyer, FW, superheavy).
the result would be to restrict too much cheez, limit unbreakable combos, and cause a lot of thought to be put into taken choices. it'd also -- by placing enough balanced restrictions on listbuilding -- place more emphasis on the actual tactics and gameplay skills. it'd also, if adopted regularly, be a great method of restricting uberbuilds well before they gain steam, or preventing the same people from running the same lists to great effect each time.
i post this for three reasons:
1. i have a strong desire to play more, but i see a ton of online complaints, issues, and concerns about the broken-ness of gw games since mid-5th
2. i think it is at least intriguing as an idea for structure, creating a situation that includes a middle ground between restriction and freedom
3. as a thought exercise's first draft, i'm unsure what else to do with it, so i'd like feedback
an argument against GW's points-balance
a game such as 40k does not work if it is not balanced.
certain codices are... lacking... in that regard. i have no idea how much each writer contributes to rules, but it's clear that certain rulesets have drifted from the system used to set points by GW's supposed leadership. sadly, just about anything by Mat Ward is bound to create problems -- i know the hate is huge for him; that's not what this issue is, but the man's name is explicitly on the majority of the books that have done serious damage to the credibility of the game.
the best example of this is in a unit usually seen in a Space Marine army: the Terminator
there are three varieties of Terminator. if the rules are balanced, the differences in them should be accounted for with differences in points. if the points are drastically different for similar options, or if the prices are the same but one has more equipment etc, there are issues with the system of balance.
many people have argued, when i've pointed this pot in the past, that Grey Knight only have two kinds of Troops, and other significant limitations in options, therefore their terminators need to be cheaper in order to supply the same level of competitiveness to the table. an interesting sentiment, but it's not appropriate nor is it standard -- Deathwing has been an army for years, and has gotten no such consideration. now, with the new methods of detachments, this argument is relying on more of an arbitrary personal decision rather than a rules requirement.
that all being said....
let's compare three terminators. Grey Knights, Deathwing, and Standard
all three have the same statline
all three have 2+5++ standard
all three have Relentless and Combat Squads
Standard are 200 points for five, equipped with 4 powerfists, a powersword, and 5 stormbolters.
they get Chapter Tactics and ATSKNF
Deathwing are 220 points for five, with the same armament
they get Deathwing Assault, Inner Circle (preferred enemy: chaos, and Fearless), Split Fire, and Vengeful Strike. so more toys, for more points.
Grey Knights are 165 points -- 35 points cheaper than standard, or 7 points cheaper per model. they are equipped with force swords and storm bolters. power swords are 10 points cheaper than power fists, but force weapons are an extra surcharge... the difference between a Daemon Hammer and a THunderhammer is 5 points for Force, so we can use that figure... a difference of 5 points per fist and -5 for the sergeant's sword, or 15 points cheaper. in addition, they get three kinds of grenades. also, they get the rules The Aegis, ATSKNF, Brotherhood of Psykers, Preferred Enemy (daemons), and Purity of Spirit. in other words, they have easier dispel rolls, psychic powers, and are actually cheaper instead of more expensive.
Deathwing get some neat stuff. but so do standard Terminators -- in the form of chapter tactics. if the rules surrounding Deathwing Assault (one use only, but powerful... as opposed to something like the IH tactics giving a 6+ FNP all game... overall pretty even) is basically their Chapter Tactics, they pay 4 extra points per model for Fearless, Preferred Enemy, and split fire. if they are underpriced, it's by a point, maybe two, and that's only if split fire is relied upon as part of a strategy (which as a non-dedicated-heavy unit, is unlikely). in contrast, GK get Aegis and Purity of Spirit and Preferred Enemy as weaker but game-long Chapter Tactics, and receive their Psyker Level (an advantage more potent than a Chapter Tactic) for free.
then you have armament...
Deathwing uniquely get Plasmacannons, and split fire. a bonus. given that they are more expensive already, this could be considered factored into the cost. they also get HFlamers (10), Assault Cannons (20), and CMLs (25 points), lightning claws if desired for free, or thunderhammers and Stormshields for +5.
Standard terminators have no options for the close combat models unless an assault terminator squad is taken. other than that, all options above apply.
Grey Knights don't get any of those options. instead they get psycannons (assault cannons with +1 S for the same points), Incinerators (HFlamers with +1S and Soul Blaze for the same points), or Psilencers (6-shot ranged force weapons). the loss of CMLs is a disadvantage... but a ranged force weapon is a non-eternal-warrior killer.
GK also get to change their force sword for other weapons that nobody else gets. warding staves, falchions, halberds, daemon hammers -- all for modest price increases, but certainly unique.
GK get more toys, stronger options, and pay the same price for them. in effect, making a fully kitted-out squad even cheaper than their standard equivalent.
i call shenanigans.
i know there are many other units, and a long list of codex options for all armies that never get fielded because they just don't work for their points. mutilators, warp talons, thousand sons, nephilim fighters, howling banshees... there are just too many to name. in contrast, GK players were fuming over the loss of psybolts, but their terminators got even cheaper than they were, and they already got more toys for cheaper than anyone else.
we cannot argue that there is balance in 7th ed until all codexes are brought in line. with detachments available, it's unfair to allow certain lists (that players have varying access to via the allies matrix) to receive special treatment and improper points balance. all it does is create problems.
certain codices are... lacking... in that regard. i have no idea how much each writer contributes to rules, but it's clear that certain rulesets have drifted from the system used to set points by GW's supposed leadership. sadly, just about anything by Mat Ward is bound to create problems -- i know the hate is huge for him; that's not what this issue is, but the man's name is explicitly on the majority of the books that have done serious damage to the credibility of the game.
the best example of this is in a unit usually seen in a Space Marine army: the Terminator
there are three varieties of Terminator. if the rules are balanced, the differences in them should be accounted for with differences in points. if the points are drastically different for similar options, or if the prices are the same but one has more equipment etc, there are issues with the system of balance.
many people have argued, when i've pointed this pot in the past, that Grey Knight only have two kinds of Troops, and other significant limitations in options, therefore their terminators need to be cheaper in order to supply the same level of competitiveness to the table. an interesting sentiment, but it's not appropriate nor is it standard -- Deathwing has been an army for years, and has gotten no such consideration. now, with the new methods of detachments, this argument is relying on more of an arbitrary personal decision rather than a rules requirement.
that all being said....
let's compare three terminators. Grey Knights, Deathwing, and Standard
all three have the same statline
all three have 2+5++ standard
all three have Relentless and Combat Squads
Standard are 200 points for five, equipped with 4 powerfists, a powersword, and 5 stormbolters.
they get Chapter Tactics and ATSKNF
Deathwing are 220 points for five, with the same armament
they get Deathwing Assault, Inner Circle (preferred enemy: chaos, and Fearless), Split Fire, and Vengeful Strike. so more toys, for more points.
Grey Knights are 165 points -- 35 points cheaper than standard, or 7 points cheaper per model. they are equipped with force swords and storm bolters. power swords are 10 points cheaper than power fists, but force weapons are an extra surcharge... the difference between a Daemon Hammer and a THunderhammer is 5 points for Force, so we can use that figure... a difference of 5 points per fist and -5 for the sergeant's sword, or 15 points cheaper. in addition, they get three kinds of grenades. also, they get the rules The Aegis, ATSKNF, Brotherhood of Psykers, Preferred Enemy (daemons), and Purity of Spirit. in other words, they have easier dispel rolls, psychic powers, and are actually cheaper instead of more expensive.
Deathwing get some neat stuff. but so do standard Terminators -- in the form of chapter tactics. if the rules surrounding Deathwing Assault (one use only, but powerful... as opposed to something like the IH tactics giving a 6+ FNP all game... overall pretty even) is basically their Chapter Tactics, they pay 4 extra points per model for Fearless, Preferred Enemy, and split fire. if they are underpriced, it's by a point, maybe two, and that's only if split fire is relied upon as part of a strategy (which as a non-dedicated-heavy unit, is unlikely). in contrast, GK get Aegis and Purity of Spirit and Preferred Enemy as weaker but game-long Chapter Tactics, and receive their Psyker Level (an advantage more potent than a Chapter Tactic) for free.
then you have armament...
Deathwing uniquely get Plasmacannons, and split fire. a bonus. given that they are more expensive already, this could be considered factored into the cost. they also get HFlamers (10), Assault Cannons (20), and CMLs (25 points), lightning claws if desired for free, or thunderhammers and Stormshields for +5.
Standard terminators have no options for the close combat models unless an assault terminator squad is taken. other than that, all options above apply.
Grey Knights don't get any of those options. instead they get psycannons (assault cannons with +1 S for the same points), Incinerators (HFlamers with +1S and Soul Blaze for the same points), or Psilencers (6-shot ranged force weapons). the loss of CMLs is a disadvantage... but a ranged force weapon is a non-eternal-warrior killer.
GK also get to change their force sword for other weapons that nobody else gets. warding staves, falchions, halberds, daemon hammers -- all for modest price increases, but certainly unique.
GK get more toys, stronger options, and pay the same price for them. in effect, making a fully kitted-out squad even cheaper than their standard equivalent.
i call shenanigans.
i know there are many other units, and a long list of codex options for all armies that never get fielded because they just don't work for their points. mutilators, warp talons, thousand sons, nephilim fighters, howling banshees... there are just too many to name. in contrast, GK players were fuming over the loss of psybolts, but their terminators got even cheaper than they were, and they already got more toys for cheaper than anyone else.
we cannot argue that there is balance in 7th ed until all codexes are brought in line. with detachments available, it's unfair to allow certain lists (that players have varying access to via the allies matrix) to receive special treatment and improper points balance. all it does is create problems.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)