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

Mission 2: Objectives of differing value, with the


M




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.
TheFirstHeretic · 706 weeks ago
sirbiscuit 81p · 706 weeks ago
sirbiscuit 81p · 706 weeks ago
TheFirstHeretic · 706 weeks ago
Malatr · 706 weeks ago
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.
Malatr · 706 weeks ago
Duke · 706 weeks ago
Duke
sirbiscuit 81p · 706 weeks ago
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.
serhag 40p · 706 weeks ago
Kirby 118p · 706 weeks ago
Antebellum · 706 weeks ago
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.
sirbiscuit 81p · 706 weeks ago
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 · 706 weeks ago
abusepuppy 121p · 706 weeks ago
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.
Archnomad 70p · 706 weeks ago
Duke · 706 weeks ago
Duke
sirbiscuit 81p · 706 weeks ago
serhag 40p · 706 weeks ago
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.
Nody · 706 weeks ago
serhag 40p · 706 weeks ago
Xaereth · 706 weeks ago
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!
Duke · 706 weeks ago
Duke
Xaereth · 706 weeks ago
If that's something fine with you, then no worries- figured it might make some people sad though :-p
Duke · 706 weeks ago
Antebellum · 704 weeks ago