DARK CITY: I Need your help testing this mission

many of you play anyways.  help a fellow Archon out.

We have a major tournament every year and we are testing a new 5th mission for it.

We need people to play it and tell us what happened.  here is the missions current form:

Setup
1.  Speak to your opponent about the Terrain and then determine Warlord Traits.  Then Determine Psychic Powers/other abilities.  Finally, Roll for Night Fighting.

2.  Roll off. Winner chooses whether he will Attack or Defend.  The Attacker will choose one long board edge he will attack from/Fall Back to before deployment begins.  The Opposite Long board edge will be the Defenders board edge.

3.  Player will alternate deploying their units, starting with the Defender.  Defenders may only Deploy up to 1/2 (rounded up) of their total starting  number of Kill Points.  Reserves are declared last when deploying.  Drop pods and their occupants coming in turn one are included in this number, which may limit how many you can deploy directly on the board.  Defender units must be entirely within 12" of the center of the board (The Shrine point).  The Shrine Point is considered to be on ground level, reaching upwards to infinity, meaning that any scoring model within 3", regardless of elevation, can contest or control it as normal.  Infiltrators the Defender elected to start with can be announced and used as normal.

4.  The Attacker may deploy all of his forces anywhere on his half of the board that is not within 18" of the center of the board (the Shrine Point).

5.  Roll off to begin alternating placement of your infiltrators.  Then roll off again to alternate moving any scouts, as normal.

6.  The Defender has the first turn.  The Attacker may attempt to Seize initiative.

Mission Special Rules:
A.  The player who goes first may not charge in turn one.
B.  Attackers and Defenders within 12" of the Shrine point gains a +1 to their Leadership for all purposes, unless Desecrated.
C.  Units the Defender placed into normal reserve must roll on the following chart and be deployed accordingly when they do arrive from normal reserve:  
1-2: The Defenders long board edge
3-4:  The Attackers long table edge
5-6:  Any table edge.[/color]
D.  Defenders fall back to the nearest board edge.

Primary Objective:
Control the Shrine Point.  Doing so is a Primary Objective (9 points)

Secondary Objective (6 points for Attacker, Variable points for Defender, see below):
Attacker objective (only):  Desecration:  Any of the Attackers non-vehicle units may choose to Desecrate the Shrine point (instead of shooting) when it controls the  Shrine point.  If the Shrine point is desecrated at the end of the game, you have achieved the Secondary Objective.  When the Shrine is considered Desecrated, both attacker and Defender lose the benefit of the Shrine.  Also, the Defender (specifically) receives a -1 to Leadership (for all purposes) when within 12" of it.
A Defending non-vehicle unit may choose to re-consecrate the Shrine point (instead of shooting) if it controls the Shrine Point.  If this happens, the Shrine Point is no longer Desecrated, and the effects of Desecration cease, and the effects of the Shrine point return to normal!

Defender Objective(only):  The One: Beginning in round 2, a Defending Independent Character who controls the Shrine Point and is attached to a unit that originally cost 75 points or more may sacrifice the unit he is attached to instead of shooting, removing it from play with only him remaining in place.  The character gains the Objective Secured and Zealot Special Rules for the rest of the game.  The Defender will receive Secondary Objective points as follows:  Round 2: 3 points, Round 3:  5 points and Round 4+: 6 points.

Tertiaries (3 points):  
1.  Line in the Sand:  Control at least two Table quarters by the end of the game by having more Scoring unit in them than your opponent.  A scoring unit can only claim to be in one Table Quarter for this purpose.  You can score this objective once.
2.  Line Breaker:  If you end the game with one model fully within 12" of the enemy long board edge, you have achieved this objective.  You can only score this once.
3.  Slay the Warlord:  If the enemy has no Warlord on the board at the end of the game, you have achieved this objective.  Obviously, you can achieve this objective only once.

Please play this mission and report back your findings.

I write missions for events locally - nice to see some new ones coming out!

Without playing it - and at a first glance - here are my initial thoughts...

Unorthodoxy wrote:

Setup
1. Speak to your opponent about the Terrain and then determine Warlord Traits. Determine Psychic Powers/other abilities. Roll for Night Fighting.
2. Roll off. Winner chooses whether he will Attack or Defend. The Attacker will choose which long board edge he will attack from before deployment begins. The Opposite Long board edge will belong to the Defender.
3. The Defender may place up to 1/2 (rounded up) of his starting total number of units entirely within 12" of the center of the board (The Shrine point). Infiltrators you elected to start with can be announced and used as normal.
All other Defender units must go into Reserve. The Defender can use whatever Reserve rules the units normally allow.
4. The Attacker may deploy all of his forces anywhere on his half of the board that is not within 24" of the center of the board (the Shrine Point).
5. Roll off to begin alternating placement of your infiltrators. Then roll off again to alternate moving any scouts as normal.
6. The Defender has the first turn. The Attacker may attempt to Seize initiative.

All of this makes sense right up until point 6. Thematically, the attackers should go first. I think reversing what you had might be better - let the defender pic sides and so on but attacker goes first.

Unorthodoxy wrote:

Mission Special Rules:
1. No one may charge in round one.
2. Anyone within 12" of the Shrine point gains a +1 to their Leadership for all purposes unless Desecrated.
3. The Defenders reserves can come on from any board edge if they were placed in normal reserves.

All ok - the no charge turn 1 is probably not needed to be honest but I get why you added it.

Unorthodoxy wrote:

Primary Objective:
Control the Shrine Point. Doing so is a Primary Objective (9 points)

AOK

Unorthodoxy wrote:

Secondary Objective (6 points):
1. Desecration: any of the Attackers non-vehicle units may choose to Desecrate the Shrine point (instead of shooting) when it controls the Shrine point. If the Shrine point is desecrated at the end of the game, you have achieved a Secondary Objective. If the Shrine is Desecrated, Both attacker and Defender lose the benefit of the Shrine. Also, the Defender receives a -1 to Leadership (for all purposes) when within 12" of it.

1A. Consecration: A Defending non-vehicle unit may choose to consecrate the Shrine point (instead of shooting) if it controls the Shrine Point. If this happens, the Shrine Point is no longer Desecrated and the effects of Desecration cease, and the effects of the Shrine point return to normal.

2. The One: A Defending Character who controls the Shrine Point and is attached to a unit may sacrifice the unit he is attached to instead of shooting, removing it from play with only him remaining in place. The character gains the Objective Secured and Zealot rule for the rest of the game. This is a Secondary Objective.

This is quite complex but I get the idea behind it. Personally - ditch the 2. rule. some armies will find it exceptionally easy to get this point with no effective loss on the table.

Unorthodoxy wrote:

Tertiaries (3 points):
1. First Strike: If you kill an entire unit in the first round, you have achieved this objective. You can only score this once.
2. Line Breaker: If you end the game with one model fully within 12" of the enemy long board edge, you have achieved this objective. You can only score this once.
3. Slay the Warlord: If the enemy has no Warlord on the board at the end of the game, you have achieved this objective. Obviously, you can acheive this objective only once.

All fine.

Once I play a few games I will let you know how it went!

Personally, I don't think Attacker/Defender missions work very well in a tournament setting.
It creates what can be game-breaking imbalances which for a competitive setting can cause problems.
I get the idea, and for causal play this sounds like it might be fun, but imagine for example a heavy Tau firing line drawing Defender on this. Worse, could you imagine Dark Eldar, who rely on speed and movement, drawing Defender? Whatever you may think of Dark Eldar competitive ability, being forced into a defensive would be a nightmare for most Kabalites.
Or how about someone who has built their army as a firing line complete with Fortification drawing Attacker and finding themselves completely unsuited to the task at hand. Where would that Wall or Martyrs go thats even remotely useful?

Like I said, in casual it looks fun, but for tournament play, I think setting missions as equal as possible on both sides is far better. That way you don't get players upset when the only reason they've done poorly (or someone else has done well) is because of the draw on missions.

It's possible to have only 12 inches between units at the start. It's a bit short, isn't it? I like it nevertheless.

Unorthodoxy wrote:

4. The Attacker may deploy all of his forces anywhere on his half of the board that is not within 24" of the center of the board (the Shrine Point).

should be not within 24" of an enemy model

Massaen wrote:

I write missions for events locally - nice to see some new ones coming out!

Without playing it - and at a first glance - here are my initial thoughts...

All of this makes sense right up until point 6. Thematically, the attackers should go first. I think reversing what you had might be better - let the defender pic sides and so on but attacker goes first.

All ok - the no charge turn 1 is probably not needed to be honest but I get why you added it.

This is quite complex but I get the idea behind it. Personally - ditch the 2. rule. some armies will find it exceptionally easy to get this point with no effective loss on the table.

Once I play a few games I will let you know how it went!

Playing it will reveal the answrs to most of the things people said (we've tested it a few times locally already).[/quote]


Let me address these points.

The Defender in this is going first because they have like 1/2 their force out o nthe board! Perhaps not even that. Also, The defender is of course always in a better position. Ask Finland. The other thought behind it is it took the Attacker some time to get into position at all. the Defender was already there.
There are more practical reasons also: We need to give the Attacker the ability to attempt the Secondary if the Defender goes first it would be difficult for the Attacker to do.

The no charge turn one is simple: They can start VERY close together. Some armies could be in big trouble if we don't do that. The Attackers have had a long trip just to get there, the Defenders are entrenched and need to break camp to assault etc.. Whatever reasoning works from a fluff standpoint but the extreme potential proximity required us to do that.

The Secondary did create some confusion. You have to read it carefully. The Attacker's secondary is Desecration. The Defenders Secondary is Sacrifice and with only half his forces there to begin with, its a pretty delicate balance as to when he will want to actually do that. When the unit is at full strngth? Afterwards? He has to control the Shrine Point to do it, so... Whle it might be easy to do, it might not be a very comfortable choice. We havent had someone Sacrifice successfully yet but it will happen eventually. We need testing on it though and thats why this is here!

CptMetal wrote:

It's possible to have only 12 inches between units at the start. It's a bit short, isn't it? I like it nevertheless.

Short yes but the battles thus far have been highly dynamic thus far. That 12" is a lot longer than it looks as I found out. Lol.

But test it please. Play it. It's, again, why I posted it. The actual mission once you start making deployment decisions and all that is going to probably play differently than it seemed at first.

Massaen wrote:

Unorthodoxy wrote:

4. The Attacker may deploy all of his forces anywhere on his half of the board that is not within 24" of the center of the board (the Shrine Point).

should be not within 24" of an enemy model

That is actually not an error. Multiple people have said that though. When you deploy you will kind of see why.

Cool - thanks for the info about the mission - should get a game with it this weekend

quick question, might seem abit silly but here goes. the defender can score linebreaker by having one of his or her units in the attackers deployment zone at the end of the game. the defenders set up in the centre and reinforcements come from any table edge. for the attackers to score linebreaker, do they have to have a unit on the opposite table edge from where they deploy? It may seem silly but as they don't set up there, it could lead to arguments and thought it might be best if tis is cleared up before anyone tries this scenario ^^

Squidmaster wrote:

Personally, I don't think Attacker/Defender missions work very well in a tournament setting.
It creates what can be game-breaking imbalances which for a competitive setting can cause problems.
I get the idea, and for causal play this sounds like it might be fun, but imagine for example a heavy Tau firing line drawing Defender on this. Worse, could you imagine Dark Eldar, who rely on speed and movement, drawing Defender? Whatever you may think of Dark Eldar competitive ability, being forced into a defensive would be a nightmare for most Kabalites.
Or how about someone who has built their army as a firing line complete with Fortification drawing Attacker and finding themselves completely unsuited to the task at hand. Where would that Wall or Martyrs go thats even remotely useful?

Like I said, in casual it looks fun, but for tournament play, I think setting missions as equal as possible on both sides is far better. That way you don't get players upset when the only reason they've done poorly (or someone else has done well) is because of the draw on missions.

I played Tau As Attacker and Defender. It played fine both ways. What I need is people to actually play it.

The Dark Eldar can definitely defend in this mission. keep in mind that the Defender has the ability to reserve as well, and Dark Eldar have speed.

All these questions you ask are ones that you should test. Get together with a friend and play the mission both as attacker and defender if you wouldn't mind and report back what happened. Any help is much appreciated.

Dodo_Night wrote:

quick question, might seem abit silly but here goes.  the defender can score linebreaker by having one of his or her units in the attackers deployment zone at the end of the game.  the defenders set up in the centre and reinforcements come from any table edge.  for the attackers to score linebreaker, do they have to have a unit on the opposite table edge from where they deploy?  It may seem silly but as they don't set up there, it could lead to arguments and thought it might be best if tis is cleared up before anyone tries this scenario ^^

I missed this post. Muh bad.


The original post answers that question:

2. Roll off. Winner chooses whether he will Attack or Defend. The Attacker will choose which long board edge he will attack from before deployment begins. The Opposite Long board edge will belong to the Defender.

Unorthodoxy wrote:

I played Tau As Attacker and Defender.  It played fine both ways.  What I need is people to actually play it.  

The Dark Eldar can definitely defend in this mission.  keep in mind that the Defender has the ability to reserve as well, and Dark Eldar have speed.

All these questions you ask are ones that you should test. Get together with a friend and play the mission both as attacker and defender if you wouldn't mind and report back what happened.  Any help is much appreciated.

I think the main point I was trying to make was that in tournament play you don't usually get to play a mission twice. Unless that is your plan, to have every player play this twice, once as attacker and once as defender. The trouble I see with attacker/defender missions in a tournament setting is that people can bring armies totally unsuited to the style, and walk away feeling like it was the mission, and their drawing as either attacker or defender rather than their actual army choices and ability, which cost them valuable points and maybe cost them the tournament.
I'm just throwing that in as advice from a guy who runs an annual tournament. THe playing field of a tournament usually needs to be as level as possible so that the only factors affecting outcomes are army choices and ability. The last thing you want is someone being able to blame the organization of the tournament for their losses.

(Yes, I get that a normal friendly player probably wouldn't get like this, but the overly competitive DO exist)

Squidmaster wrote:

The trouble I see with attacker/defender missions in a tournament setting is that people can bring armies totally unsuited to the style, and walk away feeling like it was the mission, and their drawing as either attacker or defender rather than their actual army choices and ability, which cost them valuable points and maybe cost them the tournament.

Totally agree. I went to a tournament a few years ago where the first mission was an attacker/defender scenario. On literally every table, the attacker won that mission. The defender didn't stand a chance. You need to be so careful at balancing this sort of thing as even the slightest difference can make it impossible for one side to win, purely due to the dice roll to determine who is attacking. That's not fun for either player.

Squidmaster wrote:

Unorthodoxy wrote:

I played Tau As Attacker and Defender.  It played fine both ways.  What I need is people to actually play it.  

The Dark Eldar can definitely defend in this mission.  keep in mind that the Defender has the ability to reserve as well, and Dark Eldar have speed.

All these questions you ask are ones that you should test. Get together with a friend and play the mission both as attacker and defender if you wouldn't mind and report back what happened.  Any help is much appreciated.

I think the main point I was trying to make was that in tournament play you don't usually get to play a mission twice. Unless that is your plan, to have every player play this twice, once as attacker and once as defender. The trouble I see with attacker/defender missions in a tournament setting is that people can bring armies totally unsuited to the style, and walk away feeling like it was the mission, and their drawing as either attacker or defender rather than their actual army choices and ability, which cost them valuable points and maybe cost them the tournament.
I'm just throwing that in as advice from a guy who runs an annual tournament. THe playing field of a tournament usually needs to be as level as possible so that the only factors affecting outcomes are army choices and ability. The last thing you want is someone being able to blame the organization of the tournament for their losses.

(Yes, I get that a normal friendly player probably wouldn't get like this, but the overly competitive DO exist)

Your motivation is clear and I am no spring chicken when it comes to running events. So I get that.

That is why testing and not opining are the most helpful thing. No one who has tested it has altered their lists to do so but the players will have the mission well aghead of the tournament. What is necessary is testing. I myself tried the mission on a lark and realized that it was far better than i thought and so i got into it and started trying to figure out how to better it.

The results have been great battles that were competitive, for all kinds of armies but we need more actual batreps.

So if you are willing and I hope you are, playing one game and humoring me wouldnt be the WORST use of ones time. =)

Count Adhemar wrote:

Squidmaster wrote:

The trouble I see with attacker/defender missions in a tournament setting is that people can bring armies totally unsuited to the style, and walk away feeling like it was the mission, and their drawing as either attacker or defender rather than their actual army choices and ability, which cost them valuable points and maybe cost them the tournament.

Totally agree. I went to a tournament a few years ago where the first mission was an attacker/defender scenario. On literally every table, the attacker won that mission. The defender didn't stand a chance. You need to be so careful at balancing this sort of thing as even the slightest difference can make it impossible for one side to win, purely due to the dice roll to determine who is attacking. That's not fun for either player.

I agree that you must be careful. Ergo: please test.

Thus far, i have won as the Defender twice and won as attacker twice. so in other words, i won all my games. In all those games, I was hard pressed to win. This was a good sign. a hard fought competitive game is what I want.

So i then opened it up for more testing. ACTUAL testing outside of just me and someone else.

Your help would be crucial in helping us. For reference, lookto www.40kambassadors.com for details onthe other four missions. ALL FOUR are exceptionally popular with attendees. They make you think about both tactics and about your actual lists. Especially one in particular.

In any event, that notwithsdtanding, need the helps. A mission is GOING to be chosen. its either going to be from my bung hole or its goingto be from actually tested ideas. I'd prefer the latter.

Okay I got another practice game in with this mission.  I played pure Dark Eldar vs. Space Wulfen

Couple of new wrinkles I'd like to get your opinion on.  First, the issue of Drop Pods came up.  Our mission allows you to deploy up to one half of your units, rounded up, in turn one as the Defender.  if the Defender is a Drop Pod army, I realized that someone could conceivably have an all drop army and such an army would then be able to break this rule pretty much from the word go.

So that was a loop hole i needed to close and I will slightly alter the mission description for that.

The second thought that was floated was Alternating deployment.  There is an Alter of War mission in the space marine book that is similar in some respects to this mission.  there are important differences but the Alternating deployment seemed kind of cool for this mission.  

we even thought about perhaps using the Alternating deployment as a way to potentially mitigate the damage of first turn charges.  The way that would work is that the Attacker cannot be within 18" of a Defender and by alternating deployment you kind of have a chesslike game before the game to mitigate what the enemy can reach.  It could be a middle ground for allowing turn one charges should they be possible.

Anywho it was a good discussion to have and another reason why test games are so valuable.  I had not considered the Drop pod issue.

Edit:  Also changed the tertiaries to see how that goes. Also fixed the problem of if the Defender gets seized on.

Woo hoo. 5 more test games will be in the books by tomorrow. Saweet.

I think my takeaway is that The smart money is smart use of reserves, but on both sides.  I think I am comfortable with that, and players will of course know that beforehand, as the missions are posted a very long time before the event.  

So in 15 test games so far, the Defender has won 8 and the Attackers has won 7.

The armies were miriad including Daemonkin, Dark Angels, Tau Empire, Sisters of Battle, Eldar, Grey Knights, Dark Eldar, Chaos Marines, Imperial Guard, Adeptus Mechanicus and Space Wulfen.  I have to allow for the fact that different Generals will deal with it differently and that in many cases these were the very first times they were seeing the mission, so they have not refined their sense of timing and priorities as they would more familiar missions.  But in actual games, the battles have been exceedingly bloody and interesting.  I'd love it if you and Matt would play the same game and flip sides.  What you learned in the first mission will perhaps make the score a bit closer.  I would encourage everyone who has played it one way to play it the other.  I probably should have made that part of the testing protocol and i didn't.  I mean when the time comes you will need to be able to do both.  May as well test it that way.  I will next time and moving forward.

The scores were, in order of magnitude and as they have been Reported:
9-3
9-6
12-3
12-3
12-6
12-6
15-6
15-6
18-6
18-9 (First Strike was in effect when this was fought)
21-6
21-3
21-0
24-6
24-0

It's an interesting spread. The thing I'm looking for here is how often was the difference greater than 9, because 9 is the Primary and someones gotta' win right?  Any result that is 9 or less apart is an exceedingly tight game, given Secondaries and so on.  

Of the 15, we saw 9 exceedingly close outcomes,  In six games we saw wider spreads and you expect to see that to an extent since the Primary and Secondary are somewhat closely related.  So in games that were 15 points or less apart we know that one of the players successfully took and held the middle, probably against great opposition.  That was 2 of the games.  Also I would point out that two of the higher disparity games were mine, wherein I won as Attacker with Dark Eldar and Grey Knights respectively.

So out of 15, we got 4 that were not probably close, and 11 that were likely in doubt to the ending round, possibly more.  Again Generalship and knowing the mission play into that in a big way.

Just some numbers for perspective.  Since there really isn't any kind of pattern that alarms me, I am willing to try the 18" deployment thing forthe attacker and see if it tilts things.  My sense having played it is that the role of Defender has suited me best but then that is my style of play to begin with and probably why I'm attracted to the mission.  But that's also why i wanted test games.

This mission is originally from the Sisters of Battle Codex, albeit modified.  One thing I should float here:  What do you think of falling back to the NEAREST table edge on this mission?  Someone pointed out that falling back 47 inches to escape the enemy never made sense to them.  i suppose the thought is that the direction the enemy came from is probably filled with more enemies.  But with a circular deployment zone?  I am wondering if that would be a good rule.

i edit'd the original post with the mission changes. After seeing the effects of various changes, I have decided to change the table for reserves and also to change the way Defenders fall back. I think this will counter a little of the Defenders advantage that was reported by some players. In some cases, its difficult to tell if it was truly an issue since they didnt always play BOTH as attacker then as Defender. Sometimes winning and losing do color perception. Nonetheless, i think the mission will now provide an element of danger in the form of competing priorities to think about.

My main issue and the one i just cannot seem to decide on is the 24" issue. I've seen a ton of games now and i'll be honest: 18", while it "cramps" the Attacker less, seems to be too far a swing for what is essentially just an inconvenience of deployment. It leaves a gap in the Attacker deployment zone, but its not huge. 18" makes stealing the initiative for the Attacker inadvisable in many cases, which seems an undue influence. Another issue is that one wrong move by the Defender would be catastrophic at that range, and I wonder aloud if I really want someone losing just because of an "Ah ha!" moment where they kind of missed the threat until it was too late nd they are so used to starting distances of 24". A game over in turn one seems...unlikely to be fulfilling? One bad game isn't so bad if you learn from it and one hopes people are practicing beforehand but... It's definitely something i have to consider.

I truly am open to more thoughts on this if you have played the mission. I've heard from many of the players but am vacillating so much on this one issue...

First off, much love to those who commented on the mission. Even more love to those who actually play tested it.

The final version of the mission is now officially added to our website. Take a look at what you have wrought:

http://40kambassadors.com/missions.php