Asymmetrical Tournament Mission #1 Play Test Warhammer 40K Video Bat Rep

de.lotus.1

In this 40K video bat rep, Frankie and Dan try out the  Asymmetrical Tournament missions the fellas back east have been working on. For more videos, check out the Tactics Corner!

Tags:

About Reecius

The fearless leader of the intrepid group of gamers gone retailers at Frontline Gaming!

28 Responses to “Asymmetrical Tournament Mission #1 Play Test Warhammer 40K Video Bat Rep”

  1. Captn Dees March 19, 2014 1:53 pm #

    And good times were had by all! To be fair also we mention that Frankie owned me turn 1 of a previous run. So we did reset to give a better battle report, which this one was so that worked out well.

    • Reecius
      Reecius March 19, 2014 1:57 pm #

      Yeah, you guys hit reset after that first turn, lol!

    • White925 March 19, 2014 5:32 pm #

      Second game was a lot more fun!

  2. Slaede March 19, 2014 2:03 pm #

    It sounds incredibly complicated to keep track of whether or not you’re winning or losing. I think if you tacked on KP granting 1 VP per unit destroyed, you’d even further advantage Seer Council in that mission as it can still camp the center, and you aren’t getting any KP against it.

    • Captn Dees March 19, 2014 2:27 pm #

      Well yes this was part of the issue. It sounded like the guys were trying to make something to help design a mission around deathstars, when in reality a Deathstar could just sit in the middle and make it impossible to claim the most significant objective (usually).

      So they are some fun mission types, but the how you score and what you score aren’t perfect for competitive play nor actually ‘fix’ the game.

  3. RyanL March 19, 2014 2:27 pm #

    I like the idea of the progressive objectives, they have the potential to discourage turn 5 objective sniping with jetbikes and generally keeping your troops in reserve for as long as possible.

    To be honest I see not wanting your army on the battlefield as a fundamental flaw. Any situation where it’s better to have your expensive, laboriously painted models sitting in their box and not fighting feels pretty wrong!

    Unfortunately, as the guys said, the 8 point secondary can make the progressive objectives moot and has the same jetbike issue as current missions.

    The other negative I see is that armies that benefit from castling up in a corner (generally already good armies) suddenly start getting points for just doing what they do, whilst assault armies (that already struggle) get penalised for having to advance.

    • Reecius
      Reecius March 19, 2014 3:06 pm #

      I like the idea of the missions a lot: to “fix” 40K with missions as opposed to rules changes or comp.

      However, like you guys pointed out, I think the hyper-powered lists will just adjust to work better within the new limitations of these missions.

    • White925 March 19, 2014 5:34 pm #

      Yeah thats a good point about armies objective sniping but some codex’s like chaos need to objective snipe because there troops are not strong enough to last a whole game in the open 🙁

      • Reecius
        Reecius March 20, 2014 10:18 am #

        Yeah, good point. You could take a unit of Plague Marines but they are so damned expensive.

  4. Adam
    Adam March 19, 2014 3:04 pm #

    Yeah, I’m not sure about these missions, they really tend to favor armies that castle up on objectives then just go for last turn contesting… Kinda sounds familiar? Seems like the seer/beast-star would still totally obliterate this scenario. This doesn’t help the discrepancy between armies that castle up to win, vs armies that rely on mobility to win.

    • DCannon4Life March 19, 2014 3:42 pm #

      Eldar (Deldar, etc.) can do all of these things. They can castle, they can do last turn objective grabbing/denial, and they can camp key objectives/choke points. The mission moves in the right direction. The points need to be played with. Additionally, I am not a fan of dropping scoring objectives right into someone’s deployment zone. If this were my mission, each player would get to place one of the ‘progressive’ objectives wherever they wish (12″ from the nearest objective blah blah blah), but the rest would be on the mid-line of the deployment. This way, you can start scoring one objective, but you have to leave your deployment zone to score the rest. Additionally, I would consider making it so that the center objective has to be held for a full turn (bottom of 4 to the bottom of 5 or top of 5 through the end of the game) in order to be ‘won’.

  5. paul March 19, 2014 3:10 pm #

    Thanks for playing the mission, guys. Those were good critiques.

    A couple of things that I likely need to spell out better in the mission:

    The points in the primary are not a differential so all the points you score during the game are yours. We are discussing making everything pass/fail for final scoring.

    The secondary is a lot of points but since you know your opponent will be going for it, and its in the center, it inspires interaction. The missions are not meant to penalize any specific army type but it does make the current ‘easy mode’ armies have to think a bit. It was nice to see that in action.

    You guys may have forgotten to count first blood, line breaker and slay the warlord.

    • Captn Dees March 19, 2014 3:46 pm #

      Ok so we did the Primary correct. The problem is normally I maybe get 4 or 5 and my opponent may get 2-3. So overall we might only be talking about a difference of a few points. That’s the ‘differential’ we’re talking about on that.

      Meanwhile the secondary is 8!

      While the primary you COULD score a lot, the reality is nobody is covering 4 objectives for 5 turns. At best someone is maybe controlling 2 objectives for a few turns, then the opponent is covering some for a few, and if it isn’t a tie a lot of times it will be pretty close.

      In our game it ended up being a landslide because I had 5-0 for primary and the center objective for 8. We didn’t even bother to count up the tertiary because it MAX would be 4 points (and probably went to me also). He would have got first blood and we both had warlord… but again the Primary and Secondary had already well and sealed the game.

    • Leth March 20, 2014 8:57 am #

      Is it that you score points at the end of the game turn, or the end of your turn?

      I think end of individual turns would be better reducing the benefits of going second in tournaments.

  6. Weidekuh March 19, 2014 3:29 pm #

    How about if you controll the progressive points in the opponents zone, you get more points per round?

    • Captn Dees March 19, 2014 3:47 pm #

      Maybe some potential there, but again the assault army has to throw everything they have to get to assault they usually aren’t spending time camping an objective hoping to not get shot to death.

      It is an interesting mission and I think there is merit but I don’t think we’ve got it figured out how to score this right!

      • Adam
        Adam March 19, 2014 4:41 pm #

        Yeah, progressive scoring in general really is a kick in the nuts to combat armies, as if they haven’t had enough…

  7. novaStar March 19, 2014 4:45 pm #

    I love the fluff blurb at the beginning it reminded me of when Reece tried to summon the
    DA DA DOOOOOOOOOOOM Ridaaaa!!!!! to the shop

    • White925 March 19, 2014 5:38 pm #

      Haha yeah Captn Dees had a hard time reading it seriously the first time but was well rehearsed for the second game lol

  8. Chip March 19, 2014 6:38 pm #

    What mission was this? I haven’t heard of this one, and it sounds pretty different than what’s on http://missioncatalog.com/.

    • elphilo March 20, 2014 7:27 am #

      Its a mission the FTN guys made.

      • MVB March 20, 2014 7:48 am #

        I think Chip’s point was this is not an asymmetrical mission, nor “Asymmetrical Tournament Mission #1” from the Mission Catalog, so might cause some confusion as currently titled.

        • elphilo March 20, 2014 9:45 am #

          Ah well that makes more sense then. Yeah I first thought it was one from the catalog until they said the FTN guys sent it to them.

        • Reecius
          Reecius March 20, 2014 10:23 am #

          It was titled as such in the packet they gave us. We may have had a miss-communication.

  9. iNcontroL March 19, 2014 10:15 pm #

    nice game guys 🙂 I’m a big fan of narratives being forged. hard.

  10. DarkAce March 20, 2014 5:13 pm #

    Just tried out the mission with my still adjusting tau list vs. a salamander drop pod list. Primary scoring stayed the same but we changed the secondary to 4 points. This still made it matter but it wasn’t the only objective that mattered then

Leave a Reply