PDA

View Full Version : Would you like to see missions in Fantasy game?



40kdhs
27-03-2009, 18:27
We see different missions in 40k. Would you like to see different missions in Fantasy game?

Thank you for participating and please vote.

N810
27-03-2009, 18:33
Don't we allready have scenarios,
are they not the same thing ?

Bac5665
27-03-2009, 18:44
No. I like take all comers style play, and missions can really mess with that.

zak
27-03-2009, 18:52
I really liked the old missions in 6th edition and it added to the game. Sometimes it put your army at a disadvantage, but then that for me adds to the tactical challenge rather than diminishes it. You have to laugh when the dwarf gunline has a mission where they need to break through and get off the other side of the board.

IcedCrow
27-03-2009, 18:54
I think the biggest flaw is playing Warhammer with the same tired old pitched battle all the time.

Scenarios force army composition. If you know you could have a magic flux scenario, you won't take the all mage cheese wheel of doom.

If you know you may have to capture a point on the table, you won't create the all gunline army.

Static pitched battles, to me, are the biggest source of burnout, frustration, and enforcers of OP play.

Gaius Marius
27-03-2009, 18:55
As long as the missions encourage core heavy builds to the armies and still recognize that the type of warfare as practiced in the fantasy world is that of decisive engagements, not limited objectives within a context of total war a la 40K.

40kdhs
27-03-2009, 19:14
Before the game starts, wee can roll for a mission and how to deploy your army because it makes the game more interesting and challenging instead of playing the same games for years.


Achieving the objective is the most important thing in the game. Regardless of how many units are killed, you can win or tie the game as long as you accomplish your mission.

GW needs to introduce 'kill point' in Fantasy games too because it's quicker and easier to count the 'kill points' than the total points of all destroyed units.

selone
27-03-2009, 19:19
No thanks to kill points.

Bac5665
27-03-2009, 19:21
Kill points would mean I'd never go to a tournament again, and that would make me very, very sad.

The_Outsider
27-03-2009, 19:26
Mssions dramatically alter the metagame, it is seriously boring to just have pitched battle. Not to mention having missions (which you randomly roll for) will shift force composition in different directions making a list that can deal with anything very, very important.

Not to mention they can easily punish extreme builds who will often lack the ability to adapt to anything that isn't "point, click, get VP".

IcedCrow
27-03-2009, 19:48
Any links to the random scenario generator around?

Revlid
27-03-2009, 20:15
Yes. The loss of scenarios/missions in the BRB was the greatest disappointment of this edition.

I'd love to see their inclusion in, say, a 7th Ed. General's Compendium. hint hint, GW.

Desert Rain
27-03-2009, 20:41
I'd love to see the return of the scenarios in the 6th ed BRB. Nothing stops you from using them now though. A General's Compendion 2.0 for 7th ed would be rally nice too.

Talonz
27-03-2009, 20:49
Scenarios, yes. Missions like the 40k missions? Hell no!

Unless they were side missions, and not integral to the main goal of engaging the enemy on the field, that of destroying his army and thus his capacity to make war.

Missions just dont work well in fantasy.

N810
27-03-2009, 20:51
Perhaps you should explain better how these "Missions" work...
(not all of us play 40K)

Talonz
27-03-2009, 21:00
In fantasy, the 'mission' is pitched battle/seize ground/assassinate the general, kill as many of the enemy you can while limting your own losses and at the same time seizing table quarters, enemy flags, and killing their general.

In 40k you roll a d6, and that determines which of 3 victory conditions you use.

I much prefer the fantasy system.

selone
27-03-2009, 21:23
Whilst I can see the advantages of trying to mix up mission's,c ertain victory condition's seem higly unfair on some armies. A take and hold would screw over infantry armies for instance esp. dwarves.

Urgat
27-03-2009, 22:04
Well, we do make up scenaries, it's not like there's a need to wait for GW. That way you can adapt it to the armies.

TeddyC
27-03-2009, 23:36
in 40k missions are easier to work as everyone ahs the same movement value and armies are all equally manouverable with some more so.

in fantasy some armies just armies made to be able to break off a table edge or take and hold something. Some armies are inherently fragile while others are nothing but slow. Others maybe small in number.

mweaver
28-03-2009, 02:44
Well, since use of them would be optional, I don't see any reason to oppose them - and I think they could add some variety to games.

Staurikosaurus
28-03-2009, 08:37
Well, we kind of already have 2 scenarios

1)I'm playing against daemons
2)I'm not playing against daemons

:angel:

maze ironheart
28-03-2009, 10:14
We see different missions in 40k. Would you like to see different missions in Fantasy game?

Thank you for participating and please vote.

I say no as I prefer to play a nice clean fight no messing around trying to get some objective I only want to play missions in 40k not in fantasy

Griffin
28-03-2009, 10:18
Well in 40K you role to see what kind of mission you get:

Hold objectives, Straight annihilation, Taking table quarters etc.

Then you role to see what kind of Deployment you use:

Deploy entire army in one half, keep most of your forces in reserve etc.

Then there's stuff like Night fighting. Combine all the above and it's easy to have 9+ different scenarios - your army has to be able to compete in them all. I'd like to see something similiar in fantasy, obviously geared more toward fantasy objectives Like holding a bridge against enemy forces or Storming a castle, or having to get from Table quarter A to B etc.

It could be fun - straight up annihilate isn't always the most fun.

Ward.
28-03-2009, 11:08
Before the game starts, wee can roll for a mission and how to deploy your army because it makes the game more interesting and challenging instead of playing the same games for years.


Achieving the objective is the most important thing in the game. Regardless of how many units are killed, you can win or tie the game as long as you accomplish your mission.

GW needs to introduce 'kill point' in Fantasy games too because it's quicker and easier to count the 'kill points' than the total points of all destroyed units.

I just threw up in my mouth a little.


Scenarios and better rules for smaller games gets my thumbs up though, perhaps better fleshing out of the core rules for mordhiem as well.

Master Stark
28-03-2009, 11:16
Kill points are absolute poo. They don't even belong in 40K, let alone WHFB.

Having said that, some sort of standardised scenario generator for WHFB would be great. So long as it was properly thought out.

The boyz
28-03-2009, 11:25
I voted no on the poll. The idea of capture a wood or other objective based missions, doesn't really appeal to me. Plus, I think my Dwarf's would really struggle to capture any kind of an objective.

I don't mind the idea of playing various scenarios now and again. As pitched battle's can get a bit boring after a while.

Von Wibble
28-03-2009, 11:37
Plus, I think my Dwarf's would really struggle to capture any kind of an objective.

I don't mind the idea of playing various scenarios now and again. As pitched battle's can get a bit boring after a while.

These 2 things are exactly why I voted yes.

Dwarfs and gunlines in general are overpowered in pitched battles, unless the opponent plays in incredibly gittish style. I know that's the only way that my high elves would stand a chance for example. By forcing them to come forward they have to take a more balanced approach, thus giving a better game.

Similarly having a mission where the army with the most "scoring units" left alive wins would prevent deathstar tactics. A death star army in all likelihood has just 1 scoring unit that isn't easy to kill. A balanced army has more like 5 - so the only way Grand Moff Tarkin wins is to wipe out the opponent.

Scenarios (missions is a 40K term really) force a more balanced set up and therefore should be included.

Master Stark - there was such a generator in a white dwarf a few years back. I wouldn't necessarily say it was balanced but it did throw up some different games. With tweaking it would be ideal.

Master Jeridian
28-03-2009, 11:57
Shudder, if any of the awful mess of 40k rubs off on Fantasy, I'll have jump ship yet again.

Kill Points- yuk, amazingly most older geeks aren't mathematically challenged, kill points take balance and laugh at it's corpse. Steam tank 1 Kill point, detachment of 5 Free Company 1 kill point. Guess which is harder to kill.
Simply put it encourages people even more to take the Deathstar units, few of them, rather than an army like the detachment heavy Empire that's already nigh impossible to win with.


Objectives- as secondary missions, that contribute to your primary of VP's, sure. We already have them...

Assassinate General
Capture Banner
Capture Table Quarters

If you want to fiddle with their value (i.e. points worth) or add more secondary, sure, it'd be interesting.


Trying to force 40k- mission only matters, just doesn't work. Fantasy armies aren't designed to capture objectives, or to zip around the battlefield at super speed. The Fantasy setting is ancient/medieval, 40k setting is modern/WW2- the styles of warfare fought in those periods where radically different.

I keep hearing also that Dwarfs and Gunlines are the bane of Fantasy that these missions will 'rightly' screw over.
Because Dwarfs and Gunlines win all the major tournaments and are considered the top tier lists......oh wait, no, they ain't.


-The scary thing is, looking at the GT missions, and GW complete lack of playtesting and belief that it's models first, who cares if the game works. I foresee 8th Ed being 40k-ised, and that would be a shame (well not for my wallet).

W0lf
28-03-2009, 12:29
Im in the camp of 'we already have objectives in pitched battle'.

The game is imbalanced enough as it is, without adding missions that will add to the issue.

Oh and if they added 40K style missions then we would undoubtly see even less infantry then we do now.

I can see it now...

1. Kill points
2. Break through
3. capture objectives.

So how many non-cav armies are there? none that win.

lord ugwart
28-03-2009, 13:23
It would be ok by me. I'm sick of pitched battles with very little story behind them, I really enjoy skirmish or border patrol these days.

Master Stark
28-03-2009, 14:14
Master Stark - there was such a generator in a white dwarf a few years back. I wouldn't necessarily say it was balanced but it did throw up some different games. With tweaking it would be ideal.

Yeah, that was written by Gav and adapted from the WPS one, right? I used that (or something similar) for quite a while, can't remember why we stopped...

The_Outsider
28-03-2009, 14:33
So it seems "just kill each other lol" is what fantasy players (at least a decent number who have posted in this thread) prefer?

Not to mention too many people seem to assume the scenarios will be a flatout 40k copy - that is madness, the game systems work in different ways, 40k is just being used as an example for the question.

So I pose the question - if scenarios can dramatically cut down gunline and deathstar style forces by changing the metagame so one cannot purely focus on one aspect of the game, would this not go a long way to "balance" the forces (though you will struggle to escape the different power levels of the army books)?

What is so heinous about having to plonk a unit on a bridge by the end of the game?

Sirroelivan
28-03-2009, 15:04
Because Fantasy infantry doesn't have the mobility 40k infantry has (with transports and all). So, infantry would become less viable as a choice.

The_Outsider
28-03-2009, 15:08
Because Fantasy infantry doesn't have the mobility 40k infantry has (with transports and all). So, infantry would become less viable as a choice.

Obviously the scenarios would reflect that - it is not sensible to have "get a core unit in the opponents deployment zone" but something that is more inline with fantasy's movement values.

theunwantedbeing
28-03-2009, 15:48
Missions like 40k? probably not going to work all that well for a lot of armies.

Missions where you can gain additional VP for simply being around certain features?
Much more interesting, although the game already accomodates for that.

selone
28-03-2009, 15:51
Obviously the scenarios would reflect that - it is not sensible to have "get a core unit in the opponents deployment zone" but something that is more inline with fantasy's movement values.

Like what inline? This isn't 40K where all infantry moves the same but you can add a d6 or maybe even 2d6, wowsers. This is fantasy battle where you have troops that actually have movement values which drastically differ and some standard troop's can move twice as fast as others (dwarfs, ogres) cavalry which can move even faster (18 inches a turn compared to eight for 'standard' infantry)

Scenario's really wouldn't help anything and would have to really change WFB mechanics to work.

I like scenario's a lot, I like scenarios which are balanced for both forces or I know about in advance. If you want to make scenario's then do so. But please appreciate there's massive balance issues before you try to introduce them to standard WFB play and please if your problem is just gunlines then that's another story.

Mercules
28-03-2009, 16:28
I like the Objectives in the Warband rules. For one thing accomplishing the objective gives you additional VPs and not a huge amount. If most of your troops get wiped out, but you accomplish your objective (say like kill the enemy commander) you might turn a Solid Victory for them into a tie. If two armies grind each other down, but one accomplishes it's objective and the other fails theirs then you have a victory on your hands instead of a tie.

I can see them working in Fanatasy in a limited fashion. Warbands gives a percentage based on the total points for accomplishing your Objective and removes things like Table Quarters, Kill the General, Banners, and other things that give you additional VPs and turns most of them into Objectives. This means you still worry about giving up a banner in case it is their objective, but it becomes a lesser concern. Meanwhile your opponent is trying to not let you know what that hidden objective is while still trying to accomplish it.

It does encourage more flexible armies as a static lump of foot troops will be very unlikely to accomplish an Objective that requires them to get 1/3 of the total US of their troops in the enemy deployment zone. For Dwarves it encourages them to bring Rangers and keep them alive for that objective, instead of a static Gunline, or just hope they can wipe out the enemy force and prevent them from accomplishing their objective.

Different mindset and it makes the games more interesting than the "Line up 2 armies - Kill each other." style of WH:FB. Right now you are FORCED to kill enemy troops. In Warbands you could actually avoid your enemy all game... if you happened to roll the Breakthrough scenario, and just get in their deployment zone. Not a very likely thing, but it could happen.

Jind_Singh
28-03-2009, 17:11
Fantsay doesn't need a forced shift to missions, pitched battle is great. However, scenrios are often added to games to make them more interesting, ie take the monolith, hold the bridge over the river, kill a general, but you find most people (at my gaming night) like showing up and doing a pitched battle.
The issue with missions is in 40k the armies fielded are very similiar - same move values, everyone has access to transports, bikes/fliers, etc.
Fanasty armies are built in a complete different way. Some armies (VC, Goblins) can't spread out as they have to cluster around the general to function.
Some armies (brets) don't have decent foot soliders to engage on the ground level.
Overall scenerios work better as you still deploy and use your army the way it's meant to be, but won't have to realistically spread yourself too much.
And scenrio games are used fairly often to give us a quick break from pitched battle, but ulitmatly that is our favoured smack, and we all go back to it!
What could be done is a White Dwarf article stating some decent scenerios for those who need some inspiration , or fancy a change.

Angelwing
28-03-2009, 17:55
The scenario generator from 6th ed was excellent. It had one flaw in that very slow armies would struggle badly in the breakthrough scenario. It was much better than now as it forced army selection to cover more possibilities.

w3rm
28-03-2009, 19:16
Peegore's Page has a very nice scenario generator that add's 6" to a dwarf players deployment zone. They can be found here:http://www.peegorespage.co.cc/Objectives.html I would really like to see something like this.

The_Outsider
28-03-2009, 19:22
I dunno, but certainly missions like "claim this hill/whatever" would certainly make gyrocopters far more useful.

Archaon
28-03-2009, 20:19
By all means yes.

I play Flames of War (15mm scale World War 2 game) and the rulebook has several missions with special rules that spice up the missions and it is great fun and adds another level of tactics that can either really mess up your day or make it (depending if you plan for all eventualities).

One of the shortcomings of Fantasy is the boring setup.. you arrange your units face to face and then try to destroy each other. Having missions means a new approach to armybuilding and having some mission special rules could really spice up the game and breathe fresh air into it.

Who knows.. you might even field units you have never used just because they are exactly right for a certain type of mission.

Dungeon_Lawyer
28-03-2009, 22:29
just use the 6th eds ones for now

isidril93
28-03-2009, 22:31
no...that is for 40k
warhammeris very hard tomove compared to 40k and so defending objectives etc... would be hard

simple ones like
'kill enemy general' woudl be alright

Kahadras
29-03-2009, 01:30
I would certainly like to see missions introduced into Warhammer. Maybe not as cut and dried as 40K missions but it would certainly be nice to mix things up a bit. It certainly couldn't hurt, especialy if its optional. My only fear would be you would get certain people who don't want to leave the 'comfort zone' of the pitched battle leading to complaing from both pro and anti mission players.

Kahadras

Ronin_eX
29-03-2009, 03:50
I'd love to see more scenario play in WFB because that is something that is strangely lacking. Now they would have to be designed in a way that wouldn't outwardly penalize some armies (capture the objective as a Dwarf army for instance) but a handful of them for ideas would be nice.

Especially if they weren't all generic but recreated interesting historical battles (I have an old fantasy article in WD that had a few like Orc's Drift and the battle of Elfincourt). Pitched battles are nice but they are terribly generic and can drag after a while.

Now I also think that when included they shouldn't make them randomly rolled but rather have a preface discussing coming to a consensus with your opponent about which scenario you will play and who will play each role. Maybe suggesting that a breakout mission would be unsuitable for most Dwarf armies unless the player wanted a challenge. To drive the point home have some unsymmetrical match ups as well to show that battles need not always be perfectly balanced to be fun. So put a couple of balanced matches in (Pitched Battle being a obvious choice here and maybe a "take the hill"), some balanced based on objectives (hold the pass, break the siege) and then some lopsided ones (last stand, breakout, rear guard, last charge of the <insert cavalry here>).

Just some basic examples would be a nice change and it would be enough to get some creative juices flowing but using the exact same model as 40k would be the wrong approach. But to throw out scenarios all together because the 40k model wouldn't work is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Scenario play makes almost any game better and WFB is no exception, the only problem is finding the right scenario model to fit and there are more ways about it than randomly rolled canned scenarios.

Epiphany!

Just had a thought, to counter the whole "well some missions may not be balanced for some races!" problem what if we go with asymmetric objectives ala 2nd Edition 40k but with a catch: each race has their own set of random objectives. This would have the advantage of never giving a race an objective it simply couldn't complete without having to kludge a solution every time (i.e. Dwarfs always play defender in breakthrough missions).

This also means that you not only need to finish up your objective but attempt to stop the enemy from fulfilling theirs. This would certainly require much play testing to mitigate getting un-winnable pairings (or to make sure a race doesn't get it too good like Tyranid missions in 2nd) but it leads to interesting scenarios that you simply don't get using canned missions.

Add in a sub-plot system (random events ala Mordheim or even akin to Strategy Cards) to spice things up (optional of course).

It would be a fun way of adding racial flavour to the game without resorting to army wide special rules and other malarkey. And like the 2nd Edition random, asymmetric mission system it would likely be quite fun.

Further ideas:

Maybe a system based on choosing objectives based on the size of the game and a random roll. This is similar to a system used in Heavy Gear where users roll for a primary mission category. They are given a pool of objective points based on the game size of which half need to go in the primary category, the remainder can go into any other category. This adds in the "fog of war" element of a random system without producing unwinnable scenarios (because they still pick the exact mission from their category). It also gives the same tactical variety one gets from asymmetric match ups in the above method.

But really there are nearly as many scenario generation methods as there are game systems. The above are just a few that have worked in other game systems to good effect. :D

EviIPaladin
29-03-2009, 04:49
I have to say, I wouldn't mind scenarios at all. The one that really appeals to me is the hidden objective one. It could be so much fun, trying to guess what your opponent is trying to do, while making sure he can't figure out yours. It would make the game a lot more engaging then "Kill XXXX, kill YYYY" that has become WHFB...

-Evii

40kdhs
29-03-2009, 15:41
I have to say, I wouldn't mind scenarios at all. The one that really appeals to me is the hidden objective one. It could be so much fun, trying to guess what your opponent is trying to do, while making sure he can't figure out yours. It would make the game a lot more engaging then "Kill XXXX, kill YYYY" that has become WHFB...

-Evii

Definitely. Hopefully, we will see some kind of missions in 8th edition.

Gorbad Ironclaw
29-03-2009, 16:30
A decent system for scenarios, especially if we could have the game designed to actually work with them could do a lot to revitalise the game.

Staurikosaurus
29-03-2009, 22:53
It would make the game a lot more engaging then "Kill XXXX, kill YYYY" that has become WHFB...

How is WHFB only kill the opponent? Each banner captured grants VPs as well as claiming table quarters. Do you play to capture quarters? Do you count killed generals and captured banners? As well, there are a number of special features on page 100 and 101 that further change the game. All of the previous coupled with the different armies and playstyles available to each army means that there is plenty of variety. Playing with the standard scenario too much throws a wrench into the mechanics of the game.

sabre4190
29-03-2009, 23:07
For 40k, I love the missions. It forces you to add a certain degree of flexibility to your lists, and creates a stronger list making dynamic.

For Fantasy, it would be too tricky I think. Movement is alot less flexible, and it is much harder to make a proper sense of balance. Also, many races just cant muster enough mobility to do mission the right way. Take dwarfs. Any mission where they would have to advance is tricky, because they are just too slow. Fantasy "kill em all" mission have enough strategy in them as is, as opposed to 40k, where they need that extra layer for the added challenge.

Lijacote
29-03-2009, 23:14
I don't know if it was the latest White Dwarf, but it had a really nice battle report (though it was Grimdarkmer 40K) in the way that including the big picture of capturing objectives, players had their own goals like protecting some HQ, or gloriously martyring them (the battle report had two players of the same side with conflicting goals regarding that HQ)

So yeah, I'm all for missions. Anything that adds narrative potential and reduces the importance of pure killy points is great.