Kirb your enthusiasm!

WEBSITE HOSTED AT: www.3plusplus.net

"Pink isn't a color. It's a lifestyle." - Chumbalaya
"...generalship should be informing list building." - Sir Biscuit
"I buy models with my excess money" - Valkyrie whilst a waitress leans over him


Tuesday, September 20, 2011

Feast of Blades Missions



So, Feast of Blades is coming up.

For those who don't know, I designed the missions for the qualifiers, and I'm doing the main event as well.

"Qualifiers?", some of you may be saying. Well, yes. Feast held qualifying events at 32 stores this year across several states, and the 1st and 2nd place finishers from each store earned themselves a place in the Feast Invitational. 64 players, straight win/loss format, for HONOR.

Also prizes.

In addition, there's an open tournament available to everyone. This is in the traditional Battle Points format, as we have no idea what final attendance number will be, just that there will be a lot of players. The open runs parallel to the invitational, and uses the same missions, modified to use battle points. My understanding is that is too has sweet, sweet prizes. Also prestige.

There's also Warmachine and Malifaux, if that's your thing, but I'm not involved in those areas so I don't know too much about them.

So, after I bitched about last years missions, I was contacted by Chandler, the TO, who asked me what I would of done. Or would do. Would I do the missions? It was really cool, and one of the major reasons I'm excited about the event: everyone involved is really keyed in and open to criticism. People are working very hard to make this event the best it can be. You should really check out the site, there's lots of cool things I'm not even covering here.

So, for the missions, I had a tough task. The goal was to design 7 balanced, unique missions. In other words, missions that don't cater to any particular army or build. These were all hand-crafted by me, images, text, etc. are all from my own hand, in a program that lacks spell check for some reason. It was a ton of work and now I put them here for you all to rip into. I'm a big boy, I can take it.

We took a cue from NOVA and had primary/secondary/tertiary win conditions with VP final tiebreaker. However, instead of just rotating the basic three missions of objectives, KP, table quarters, we decided to go with unique primary objectives. The secondary are still the classic missions, but all the primaries do their own thing.

I will be going over each mission individually, explaining the massive playtesting and design decisions that went into it. For now, here they all are, in more-or-less final form, with a brief explanation of what they are.

If you run a blog and want to talk about these, let me know in the comments! I would love to read what anyone has to say about them, feedback is always appreciated.

EDIT: Thank you for the corrections, people. I have also switched the order of missions 4-5, to avoid having back-to-back similar missions. Also, if you comment, even just to say I suck, I will thumbs up you!

Mission 1: We only have a single W/L bracket for 6 rounds, but we REALLY wanted a way to have 7 missions total. Enter the seeding mission. It has a different format than the others, allowing players to go after any NOVA-style objective. We can use the score from this to get better brackets, which means more exciting final rounds and better vetting into individual brackets early on.







Mission 2: Objectives of differing value, with the only placed objectives worth the smallest amount of points. Note that you don't have to cross the centerline to win, defensive and offensive armies should have an pretty roughly even chance, which is what was found in playtesting.









Mission 3: Table quarters classic. Not too much you can do creative in table quarters, except make them diagonal and confuse everyone during the qualifiers. (Whoops =P)










Mission 4: Dusk Raiders, also known as the one I love and no one else gives a shit about. Modified from the qualifiers, it's now spearhead! Woooo!











Mission 5: KP, with a secondary objectives. So if you can't win by murder, at least try to keep it close and do what you're good at.










Mission 6: So, those objectives are pretty close to each other, 12" from friendly to enemy. It's kind of a game of choose-the-flank and press.











Mission 7: the finale. (sp?) The goal was to make an exciting game to cap off the series. Note that even though there's only one objective, vehicles can't contest. So that's fun.









I will be going into depth on each mission in individual posts. These posts will also have the battle points version of each mission, and an explanation for why they are scored that way. For now, let the love and (I'm sure) hate fly! I'd love to hear from you all.

Comments (25)

Loading... Logging you in...
  • Logged in as
TheFirstHeretic's avatar

TheFirstHeretic · 706 weeks ago

Mission 5 the wording for placing the objectives is different than what the picture is showing. Is it just me?
2 replies · active 706 weeks ago
Whoops! The wording is correct, the legend is missing the text defining placed and non-placed objectives, though. Also, implies more objectives... good eye.
TheFirstHeretic's avatar

TheFirstHeretic · 706 weeks ago

Love all the missions. Wont be able to make Feast of Blades but I'm gonna bring these to the gaming group.
"...missions that don't cater to any particular army..." This is the gold standard, no? An admirable goal, even. What about doing the opposite? Have you ever been to a tourney that had missions set up not per game, but per army? Missions that suit the fluff of the codex?
Tyranids would be only interested in collecting biomass; maybe they win based on KP gained (they don't care about losses) and perhaps an objective reached?
Imperials could either be attempting to wipe out the Xenos, free subjugated planets, or defend their homes.
It sounds kinda like narrative (which is not an accident), but I'd like to see it done with visceral competition in mind.
Is it even possible to achieve fairness in this?
It's a dumb idea, probably, but it might be neat to try asynchronous mission goals.
4 replies · active 706 weeks ago
Also, I'm kind of a dick: I failed to mention that your missions are cool, and look like a lot of fun.
The mission format you are talking about is actually how we are handling the Narrative game. Each army has individual goals, it should be a good time.

Duke
No, I think it's a fun idea, and it would be extremely cool if more stuff in-codices would be field dependent. I mean, how cool would it be if Tyranids got buffs for consuming biomass?

Unfortunately there's 14 armies in the game, so to make a mission for every possible matchup would require 196 missions. I think the way you seem to be suggesting, that each army just has individual goals to accomplish, could actually be done though. The biggest problem with that is that there are still 14 armies, and each army has many possible builds. If we assume 3 builds per army, so 3 missions per army possible, that's still 42 missions. It's possible to make something like that on a large scale project, but I simply don't have the time or resources to create and playtest 42 missions.

In addition, since this is a major event, there are some pretty strict sort of unwritten guidelines people are looking for in their missions. Individual race missions, no matter how balanced they are in fact, will always stink of amateur game balancing.

So, not the greatest for an event billing itself as very competitive, but an excellent idea for fun games or something like a narrative event.
if tyranids got buffs for consuming biomass, theyd be dark eldar. mmmm, delicious pain tokens
Looking good Biscuit. Appears to be a nice combination of NOVA based and others.
Antebellum's avatar

Antebellum · 706 weeks ago

Overall I like them, they are similar, yet different enough to be interesting. Nicely done. Two things I noticed based on reading the missions.

With mission 2, a player can place their objective aligned with the table quarter objective; this can make it quite easy for a single squad (a single model even) to capture both objectives and have their side worth just as much as the middle. Maybe make it so that it has to be 12" away from all other objectives.

Also, on mission 5, you reversed the placement of the quarter objectives either in the text or in the picture. The picture shows 22" from the short table edge and the text says 22" from the long table edge.

Also, would I be able to obtain a copy of the final missions? I'm going to see if my local shop would run them for a tournament.
2 replies · active 706 weeks ago
aah, I see. Yes. You are right on both counts.

At first, I was really confused about what you meant until I remembered that capture and control allows you to place objectives within 12" of each other. I'll be adding that line.

Reversed in text. This must have been what The First Heretic was talking about, and I still missed it the first time it was pointed out to me! oops! Will have to fix that as well.

You can certainly obtain copies of the final missions. If you'd like, I can reformat them easily to not say "final missions" or whatever else. My one condition is that if you do end up using them, let me know how it goes! =D
Antebellum's avatar

Antebellum · 706 weeks ago

I will absolutely let know know how they go. I will email you at some point. No need to reformat or anything.
I don't like mission 7; single-objective games always just end up as a big dogpile at the center with things being contested the whole game through. Even with vehicles unable to contest, it's still gonna be ugly. It also favors close-in armies quite a lot over more conservative ones, so Tau/IG are gonna be basically unable to win that one except by luck.

The others all look pretty good. Mission #6 is one of my favorite variations on objectives, even if it is very tough to pull a win on.
3 replies · active 706 weeks ago
If there's adequate terrain, would love to play it with Draigowing. :P
Oddly enough, I we just playtested this mission last week with tau vs Draigo and paladins. The Tau won, nobody captured the center and the tau won by about 300 victory points.

Duke
Mission 7 will be the first analysis I do, as I really want a lot of feedback on that one.
i played in one of the qualifiers, and the dusk raiders secondary objective was almost impossible to get for anybody. other than that, i enjoyed all the missions.

what i dont enjoy (and i dunno if the upcoming tournament will have this or not) is having someone win the tournament but not win all their games. the winner at ours lost to the guy who went undefeated and took second. if you win out, you should place higher than someone with a lesser record. its especially insulting to lose the tournament to someone you soundly whupped 2 hours earlier.

tournament victory should be scored by win/loss and battlepoints used for tie breaks. in my opinion.
2 replies · active 706 weeks ago
Could argue that he won the battles but lost the war though (if it was done on KP or VP or what ever) by losing to much resources.
eh. i look at it like this: i care about who wins the superbowl, not who scores the most points in the season. i want the WINNER.
I like them for the most part. Mission 7... not so much. For any other mission I'd be more okay with it, but since it's the 'championship' round, and the two undefeated players at this point are presumably the 'best' players, at least at this particular tournament, it sort of makes for an untactical game. Because this objective will be pretty easy to contest (even if vehicles can't for some reason?), it turns into a 'who kills the other person more' match. Not my absolute favorite. Heh. :-p

Also, for the first mission, have you thought of the possibility that the game with the largest disparity in points (if someone goes 45-0, for example), using seeding as I understand it, wouldn't those same people simply play again in Round 2? Maybe you have a contingency plan for this, just figured I'd voice it if you haven't already thought of it!
3 replies · active 706 weeks ago
We are doing seeding like the NCAA 16vs1. 15vs2. Otherwise good players will sandbag the seeding round so they can club a baby seal next round. Ideally this system will have the better players not facing each other until the final rounds, but upsets will happen.

Duke
Heh, that's what I'm saying. If two people play, and player A gets 45 points, player B gets 0 points, and nobody else has a score like that, then.... game 2 will pit Player A vs. Player B once again, in back-to-back rounds.

If that's something fine with you, then no worries- figured it might make some people sad though :-p
we've instituted a good whipping system to prevent people from playing each-other twice in a row.
Antebellum's avatar

Antebellum · 704 weeks ago

Hey, Sir Biscuit. Would you be able to send me a copy of the missions when you get a chance. draco8402@gmail . I was hoping to introduce them into a store a frequent that has monthly tournaments. I'll be sure to get you feedback. Thanks.

Post a new comment

Comments by

Follow us on Facebook!

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...