Goonhammer Mission Pack

[arnesh88]

https://www.goonhammer.com/goonhammer-approved-horus-heresy-mission-pack-2023/

 

Goonhammer released a mission pack for Horus Heresy for anyone interested.

[SkimaskMohawk]

It's terrible.

 

Progressive scoring has never been a 30k thing. One mission used it, and that mission was really a campaign one; 5th-7th did not have progressive scoring in the core missions, and the whole methodology doesn't support it.

 

What do I mean? Well in modern 40k, everything scores. If both sides have models on an objective then you count to see which side has more, and that side scores. In 30k, only some units score, while most units deny; if both sides have models on an objective, then no one controls it. You basically need a scoring unit to be by itself on an objective to score it.

 

So we have a set of missions that score at the top of each player turn. But to score you need to be on an objective with no enemy models around. And not be pinned in these rules. So how does the player on the bottom of the turn set up for the scoring on turn 2? Theyre going to be playing catch-up all game long (or until the accumulated VPs hit a point of no return). 

[Ripper.McGuirl]

I dunno, I feel like I usually have more fun with progressive scoring. I find it more engaging to see the scores going back and forth rather than figuring it all out at the end.

[Agramar_The_Luna_Wolf]

I'm a firm believer of this kind of free material created by fans. Always have something useful, interesting or at least, different, worth to try with your gaming group or usual opponents.

Just to experiment.

 

This kind of archives are always welcomed for me.

Specially if they come without viruses or something similar...XD

[Cruor Vault]

Progressive scoring is a great thing.  Definitely helps games not to be lopsided affairs determined in turn 2 when the only real objective is to blow your opponent off the table. 

[SkimaskMohawk]

56 minutes ago, Cruor Vault said:

Progressive scoring is a great thing.  Definitely helps games not to be lopsided affairs determined in turn 2 when the only real objective is to blow your opponent off the table. 

 

And yet that's exactly what the current state of 40k boils down to. Pretty sure goonhammers own Boon had some minimal turn games and concessions in his best overall win at the US Open, simply because the snowball of bad opening turns.

 

https://www.goonhammer.com/boons-us-open-grand-finale-a-best-overall-finish/:

 

Spoiler

 

Quote

 

 

Andrew goes first.

 

At this point I’m going to save us all time – Andrew went first, pre-game put his Devilfish on the deployment line, then moved them out Turn 1 into a position to get around the ruin wall and place shots on the Rangers with a move/disembark Breacher stratagem. He then deep struck two Coldstars with their pickup/redeploy and then the planes flew in overhead. In total he destroyed my D-Cannons, Shroud Runners, and nearly murdered the Wave Serpent – I took a performative turn to try and punch back, didn’t do much, and called it there.

 

Basically, a game technically happened, he and I were there to have witnessed it. I did take lessons from this game, but we’ll discuss those later.

 

Final Score: Loss – Concession on Turn 2

 

Quote

I made this decision knowing full well that if I went second I would just automatically lose. However, based on the experience of game one, knowing that Andrew could hit me behind the ruin walls anyway, it made no difference. I would either lose slow or lose fast. And reader if you’re going to lose, lose fast.

I Go First

Oh boy. I hadn’t thought this far ahead. We redeployed – Andrew moved his stuff back to play defense behind the ruins, the planes pulled into the corners with the Devilfish, the Commanders and Riptides all tucked back. For my part I repositioned a couple of units to give them optimal firing positions and put some Rangers in reserve (mistake – we’ll discuss later).

Everything pushed forward behind the middle ruins or swung low to take the bottom-right objective while lining shots on his home. The D-Scythes and Warp Spiders wouldn’t come out of deep strike – instead they’d stay on the board to hold objectives and threaten key units. A combination of Fate dice and shooting from the Shroud Runners, Wave Serpent, and other smaller chip damage were succesful in bringing down both Sunsharks – one exploding and clearing a number of the ablative marker drones. Barry, Hawks and the D-Cannons combined to clear a Kroot Warrior and Kroot Hound unit, severely limiting Andrew’s ability to trade on objectives. The Hawks and Barry redeployed to screen the backfield and the early offense ended – it wasn’t quite as damaging as Andrew’s first turn in game one, but it was a crippling blow. Andrew was not just tasked with digging himself out of the corner, but stopping me from scoring while sitting on four objectives with no clear way to stop my early secondary scoring to counter his late-game Kauyon burst of points.

Still, Andrew is an excellent player and made a game of it – with a couple of breaks he might have swung the game in his favor, but I was able to keep the pressure on and by the end of turn three we called it and prepared to re-rack. It’s double elimination after all and we both had one loss. To each other.

Final Score: Win – Opponent Concession on Turn 4

 

 

There are unarguably points of no return in progressive scoring. End game scoring can always be clutched out by a unit falling back, a tank shock, a jetbike swooping in at the last moment, etc... You can actually redeem bad early turns with good game play. Like the entire redeeming factor of going second is that you have control on the final game turn to influence the score. And that's gone here.

 

And heres something else to consider for goonhammers progressive scoring. In 40k, deepstrikers are naturally pushed back; even if there are no screens, a random unit usually needs to make a 9" charge and then kill the obsec unit to stop the enemy from scoring it. In 30k, you can plop an incadeus down (or whatever else through a pod) and as simply as that the objective doesn't score. The incadeus can get a literal guaranteed charge to boot and easily kill that scoring unit, and as long as that dread is standing there the objective is essentially nulled for the opponent. 

 

So going 1st gives you movement set up for either claiming or contesting objectives. It gives you shooting set up for either pinning or killing scoring units. It gives you priority for reserve rolls. There are simply more ways to stop scoring in this packet than in 40k, without even the catch-up mechanic of scoring at the bottom of turn 5 for the player going 2nd.

Edited March 12, 2023 by SkimaskMohawk

[Gorgoff]

6 hours ago, SkimaskMohawk said:

 

And yet that's exactly what the current state of 40k boils down to. Pretty sure goonhammers own Boon had some minimal turn games and concessions in his best overall win at the US Open, simply because the snowball of bad opening turns.

 

https://www.goonhammer.com/boons-us-open-grand-finale-a-best-overall-finish/:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

 

 

There are unarguably points of no return in progressive scoring. End game scoring can always be clutched out by a unit falling back, a tank shock, a jetbike swooping in at the last moment, etc... You can actually redeem bad early turns with good game play. Like the entire redeeming factor of going second is that you have control on the final game turn to influence the score. And that's gone here.

 

And heres something else to consider for goonhammers progressive scoring. In 40k, deepstrikers are naturally pushed back; even if there are no screens, a random unit usually needs to make a 9" charge and then kill the obsec unit to stop the enemy from scoring it. In 30k, you can plop an incadeus down (or whatever else through a pod) and as simply as that the objective doesn't score. The incadeus can get a literal guaranteed charge to boot and easily kill that scoring unit, and as long as that dread is standing there the objective is essentially nulled for the opponent. 

 

So going 1st gives you movement set up for either claiming or contesting objectives. It gives you shooting set up for either pinning or killing scoring units. It gives you priority for reserve rolls. There are simply more ways to stop scoring in this packet than in 40k, without even the catch-up mechanic of scoring at the bottom of turn 5 for the player going 2nd.

Then make the movement of the objectives after scoring higher and random. Problem solved.

Use more LOS blockers. 

Add the "They, who have more scoring bodies on the objective, score" rule you meantioned.

In short: think of improvements with us and don't just talk it down.

Be part of the solution and not part of the problem.

[Cleon]

I think the issue here is other people think you are creating a problem where one doesn't exist. The last thing people who are playing HH because it's not 40k want is the things they don't like about 40K imported into the system and for some these objectives are part of that.

 

Personally I've not played enough HH yet to really have an opinion either way, but I don't think it's helpful to say that people who suggest you are on the wrong path are 'part of the problem' it should be useful feedback when people are giving a clear 'not interested in following you down this path' feedback instead of minor tweaks that this is not something universally agreed is the right direction to be taking.

[Gorgoff]

I thought about Maelstrom Missions the other day. Did someone try this in HH?

[Gore Crow]

A group here in the UK have run at least one event using maelstrom style cards - HeresyHammer. 
 

I didn’t go but have heard they were good. 

[Dont-Be-Haten]

I have built a campaign mission pack with progressive scoring. I've also used missions from older editions, as well as campaign books from 4th-5th edition 40k upto urban conquest and crusade rules.

 

Just about everything is fun and exciting, plus it gives some variety once you've played all of the BRB missions multiple times. The way it currently plays, once you kill off all the troop choices in certain scenarios, it goes to secondary objectives to win, which doesn't really help in fully telling a story, sometimes.

[General Zodd]

Personally, I think anything that adds diversity to the missions types people think of or accept to play is a good thing. HH isn’t primarily a tournament game, so thankfully we shouldn’t have to feel like we need to get reps in on specific approved missions to get in shape for the next event.

 

Progressive scoring is a nice idea, and everything is welcome in moderation. As long as there’s not a hard swerve by the community into only playing that, I think it can only be a good thing to have more ways to play.

[Petitioner's City]

Combined with progressive scoring, wouldn't it be cool (like necromunda) to have a "priority" roll at the start of each turn, where the first go could go to either/any player? 

 

That would really make it hard to predict the game and mean that the first go player is t guaranteed to always have that advantage.

[Dwango]

46 minutes ago, Petitioner's City said:

Combined with progressive scoring, wouldn't it be cool (like necromunda) to have a "priority" roll at the start of each turn, where the first go could go to either/any player? 

 

That would really make it hard to predict the game and mean that the first go player is t guaranteed to always have that advantage.

Like that idea. Might try it with my gaming group. 

 

As others have said. Getting some variation can only be a good thing. These might not work but will likely give them a try. 

[Brother_Angelus]

5 hours ago, Petitioner's City said:

Combined with progressive scoring, wouldn't it be cool (like necromunda) to have a "priority" roll at the start of each turn, where the first go could go to either/any player? 

 

That would really make it hard to predict the game and mean that the first go player is t guaranteed to always have that advantage.

No, because you can end up with double turns. The shooting and melee output of a full army can be crippling in a single turn alpha strike. Then double it.

[Petitioner's City]

2 hours ago, Brother_Angelus said:

No, because you can end up with double turns. The shooting and melee output of a full army can be crippling in a single turn alpha strike. Then double it.

 

You've misunderstood; each round would involve both players playing their turn, it would just be the order in which who goes first would change potentially each round, based on a priority roll (a d6). If using necromunda's rules more directly, if the players roll equal, then the person who didn't have priority the previous round would gain it then.

Edited March 13, 2023 by Petitioner's City

[Gorgoff]

6 hours ago, Petitioner's City said:

 

You've misunderstood; each round would involve both players playing their turn, it would just be the order in which who goes first would change potentially each round, based on a priority roll (a d6). If using necromunda's rules more directly, if the players roll equal, then the person who didn't have priority the previous round would gain it then.

Using straight the Necromunda system would be terrible.

If you have to indure two consecutive turns of shooting by IF or IW the game would end there.

But I like your idea that you have a role off after infiltrators etc pp who starts the game. This way it was in previous editions of 40k and it was a lot better than the stealing of initiative we have at the moment. 

Maybe get modifiers on this role depenwing on how your army is build (super heavies would be a malus of X for example) and special rules of charakters and we'd have a nice little moment of tension. 

[Fallen11]

Seems mission favor way more aggresive armies than defensive, so if your legion is some that just want's to run face into your enemy and tear them apart, you will probably fare rly good. If you are mediocre in cc and like to shoot more, you prolly won't fare that good unless your opponent is also defensive type of army.

[Petitioner's City]

3 hours ago, Gorgoff said:

Using straight the Necromunda system would be terrible.

If you have to indure two consecutive turns of shooting by IF or IW the game would end there.

 

 

Oh now I understand 

 

But I think if that occurs (which has a lower chance of occurring), you would have had priority first - so can focusing on trying to eliminate the worst shooters - then also have reactions in both those player turns to reduce your opponent's shooting even further. I think that's quite a fun situation since it is unpredictable, and represents a more varying versimilitude versus straight a-b-a-b etc. Tbh that's what I love in games, so I understand it's preferential rather than right or wrong way to do things.

 

I have been cooking up alternating activations too, rather enjoying how they can work in heresy too :)

[Xenith]

22 hours ago, Cleon said:

The last thing people who are playing HH because it's not 40k want is the things they don't like about 40K imported into the system and for some these objectives are part of that.

 

Not read the rules pack, but pretty much this - the orst thing about 9th is the crippling amount of rules and such to remember and keep track of, then progressive scoring over 5 different objectives. Any move of the HH rules to be more like 40k would be bad.

 

That said, I do think progressive scoring on the single set of objectives that are usually in HH games is easier to manage than in 40k. I've thought this before, and think it would be a decent addition. I'd also toyed with the proposal that 'everything' is scoring, and Line units are 'objective secured' so fewer games end in stalemates due to killing all your opponent's line units. 

[Petitioner's City]

So a very rough version of the AA we cooked up for heresy is the following:

 

 - Players roll for priority at start of round using a d6, the highest roll wins, in the first round, if there is an attacker, they gain a +1 modifier. In the event of a tie, the player who did not have priority the previous round automatically wins.

 - At start of each phase each unit gains a ready marker.

 - Players then alternate, using units, in each phase (a unit which breaks into independent units, like a dreadnought talon, has a ready marker on each individual model, whereas a vehicle squadron has a single ready marker for the squadron). Each unit that acts loses it's ready marker. If a unit makes a reaction, it does not lose its ready marker, but is limited to one reaction per round (not phase). A maximum of three reactions may be used per round (four including warlord bonuses); no reaction is free. If a unit is not able to take part that phase, it also loses it's activation marker.

 

- Optional: If outnumbered by an opponent's units at the beginning of the round (when priority was determined), a player may chose to delay using up a ready marker.  When it comes to activing one of your units, pick a unit in your army who is Ready. They are not activated, and do not lose their Ready status. You may only perform a Wait action for each unit in your army once per round.

 

Anyway, it's a bit off topic, and very basic and not finessed, but can be very fun - and might complement the progressive scoring GH has determined. For that mission pack, interestingly they consulted with several prominent heresy groups, including the ones represented by players from the Gibraltar No Retreat event one GH member when to recently) :)

[Gorgoff]

I don't like alternating activation of units in games like HH and hobefully that will never be a thing.

 

Rolling each turn to determine who starts is awful as I already pointed out. Neither do I see the fun in loosing a game without doing anything wrong.

 

The reason why goonhammer created this mission pack is to remove the importance of first turn and rolling each turn would ruin this. 

 

2 hours ago, Xenith said:

 

That said, I do think progressive scoring on the single set of objectives that are usually in HH games is easier to manage than in 40k. 

We just put a dice besides the table for each player and everytime someone scores we add it to the score on the dice.

Easypeasy.

Edited March 13, 2023 by Gorgoff

[SkimaskMohawk]

1 hour ago, Gorgoff said:

The reason why goonhammer created this mission pack is to remove the importance of first turn

 

But that's not what progressive scoring affects lol, at least not when it's done in this way.

 

The first few turns are the most important in progressive scoring, since you need to scramble onto the points as fast as possible to build your score, or fall behind. What this progressive scoring does is remove the importance of the last turn, especially for the player going second.

 

Heres another discrepancy in 40k to 30k: morale. Units don't run away in 40k; if they're on the objective then they're staying there to score. When you score at the start of each turn, a fleeing unit will likely be off the objective and fail to score. On top of pinning. On top of generally contesting.

 

Honestly if they wanted to do progressive scoring so much I think of simply doing 40ks mission packs would have been better and simpler. The stuff has been designed holistically for progressive scoring, and has been tweaked constantly to reign in the snowball.

[arnesh88]

I haven't had a chance to play this missions in horus heresy, so definitely take my observations with salt (same can be said of everyone else here as of March 13th, as these literally just came out, so yeah). I plan on testing them out with friends, but I'm busy doing touch up work on my Adepticon army, so it will have to wait until after that. Everything below is subject to change after testing them.

 

Things on first observation I like:

 

- Predetermined maps with the mission: my experience has been that certain deployment maps paired with certain missions currently can determine the game right out of the gate. I've had missions/map pairing where I knew my opponent was screwed and proven correctly, and vice versa.

 

- More objective markers to capture: only 3 missions currently have objective markers (Onslaught (either favors super aggressive armies or doesn't matter much because of only being in their opponents zone), Dominion (which is already a progressive scoring mission), and War of Lies (I hate this mission so goddamn much. Not only is pure killing favored and significantly more reliable for higher score, but even capturing the objectives means there's a 1/3rd chance of it not even mattering. So it pretends that objectives are important when it's a trap). While I also like the missions that focus on taking control of certain zones, the reality is that the current missions favor whichever side has more killing power 5/6 times. Also, I personally would like to see more objective markers in the middle of the board to encourage more Line units, especially to make use of Heart of the Legion.

 

- No random 6th turn: The experience among my group has been negative around the random 6th turn. Just like how some games are determined on the roll off for First turn or Seize the Initiative, having the 6th turn swing the game on a 4+ feels bad almost all of the time. It's like the Blue Shell in Mario Kart of wargaming.

 

- None of the missions focus on killing: killing already has enough incentive and tactical use, don't beat the dead horse by making it the sole victory condition or a heavily favored objective. The mission packet avoids that.

 

Things on first observation I DON'T like:

 

- Boring, low-cost secondaries: Slay the Warlord, The Price of Failure, and Cost of War on all of them. The first two score very little to matter with these new missions, so they may need points adjustments, like in Dominion. I would like to see more variety.

 

- Victory Point balance: I do feel in missions like Rolling Advance or Changing Priority have Victory points that are too skewed one way or the other. Rolling Advance doesn't reward much more for being in the enemy deployment zone, and Changing Priority has really high points that risk the secondaries not mattering much. I prefer where Secondaries can play a factor in the end game besides just breaking ties.

 

- All of the missions are progressive scoring: While I have more positive experiences with progressive scoring missions, making them ALL such types of missions pushes for certain metas and army skew builds. The current missions in the core rule book have different variations in how offensive/defensive an army should be, but with all but 1 of the missions having end-of-game scoring leads to the same problem of heavily favoring towards gun lines, or at least going extreme in either shooting or assault direction. Well rounded/mixed arms approach suffer because of this. I would prefer a mix of both so that when players randomly determine missions, they have to consider which mission may be played in their army composition.

 

- Denial Units may still be a bit strong: One of the few positives in the current set of missions in the core rule book is that one of the missions doesn't care about denial units (Tide of Carnage). I like that it takes 2 unit types/sub-types that are considered weak this edition and make them a boon (Vehicles and Line units). Goonhammer missions doesn't have anything like that or play around with what can be scoring/denial. A lot of denial units are very durable and fast enough to still make Line relatively obsolete.

Edited March 13, 2023 by arnesh88
Underline section

[Xenith]

Oh, gakk, I didn't realise that these are scored at the start of the turn, that's awful. End of turn scoring would be better for this. As above, start of turn scoring basically makes the final turn pointless for the person going second. 

 

Again, these missions and the need to be on 1+ objectives each turn changes the game from shoot stuff to mobile and lots of line units, which is not a bad thing.