Goonhammer Mission Pack

[Petitioner's City]

@Xenith I guess one thing that compensates is the second going player has the "Initiative" in the second turn, as they played last, but as @SkimaskMohawk suggests, they are playing catch up on an uphill battle.

 

Ahaha, I definitely want to experiment with AA and these scenarios, though (and change the scoring to be end of turn). Might make progressive scoring more fair if the game turn paradigm is made much more dynamic;  it might not too of course (as @Gorgoff worries about).

[Brofist]

Man, Goonhammer is obsessed with porting 40k into 30k

[arnesh88]

19 minutes ago, Brofist said:

Man, Goonhammer is obsessed with porting 40k into 30k

What other examples are there of porting 40k into 30k besides the mission pack? I haven't seen any other content pointing to this.

[General Zodd]

18 hours ago, Petitioner's City said:

 - 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.

This is an interesting project. I don’t think alternating activations will work in HH, being turn-based is so baked in to its DNA, I think it’s likely you’ll end up having to work round so many things you might as well start from scratch. However, if you’re seriously pursuing this, I’d challenge the logic of having alternating activations *and* reactions. The addition of reactions was intended as a compromise between the two approaches. If you can “react” to your opponent’s activation with an activation of your own, “reactions” become redundant and overly complex, surely?

[Petitioner's City]

1 hour ago, General Zodd said:

This is an interesting project. I don’t think alternating activations will work in HH, being turn-based is so baked in to its DNA, I think it’s likely you’ll end up having to work round so many things you might as well start from scratch. However, if you’re seriously pursuing this, I’d challenge the logic of having alternating activations *and* reactions. The addition of reactions was intended as a compromise between the two approaches. If you can “react” to your opponent’s activation with an activation of your own, “reactions” become redundant and overly complex, surely?

 

That's a very good point, but I decided to treat them as the equivalent of tactics cards in Munda - something a little extra that gives additional tactical flexibility. It could come at the cost of a ready marker instead - return fire reaction is more potent than being shot at and then using your next activation to have the unit shoot back, for example.

 

Will think about; a player in the group also suggested looking at Star Wars Legion too.

[dickyelsdon]

16 hours ago, arnesh88 said:

- 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.

 

I like it the random extra turn, it gives a last chance to grasp victory from a defeat.  I get why some people wont like it, if you have committed to a last turn surge onto an objective (in a normal 'score at the end' game) then it could mean those units are now at risk.  But in a progressive scoring game a random extra turn seems to be a continued fight not a total-loss situation.

Edited March 14, 2023 by dickyelsdon

[Gorgoff]

18 hours ago, SkimaskMohawk said:

 

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

Joke's on you because I already fixed that.

Rofl.

18 hours ago, arnesh88 said:

 

 

- 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.

 

I like the random 6th turn.

It spices things up and tbh most games are done by then anyway.

18 hours ago, arnesh88 said:

- 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.

 

I agree. Killing shouldn't be primary mission. At least for Victory points. Giving one or two for killing more units is ok though.

18 hours ago, arnesh88 said:

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.

 

Yes, same topic as obove. 

It is ok to get points for super special units but more variety would be nice.

Just like in Maelstrom Missions.

18 hours ago, arnesh88 said:

 

 

- 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 

I would make Line units obsec  so that nobody can deny them or I would tie that to the model count of the units and make Line units count twice their unit size for that matter.

[Mandragola]

Some useful feedback here. I've passed it on to the guys at GH. A few bits will be implemented in the next version.

[SkimaskMohawk]

So in light of today's daemons, the current goonhammer progressive scoring got a lot trickier. Traitor esoterists can summon daemons from turn 1, who can then charge; the total threat range being about 35". Daemons got ap3, initiative 5 and fear; perfect for bullying basic scoring units and pinning units in place. And that's not saying anything about the two characters getting dumped in, instead of three brutes. 

 

 

[General Zodd]

The suggestion I’d make for progressive scoring to counter the criticism of last turns being less dramatic due to early points leads is to have the scoring tied to turn number. I forget where I’ve seen this before, but it’s definitely not my brain child. You could do something along the lines of scoring equals number of objectives held times by the turn number. So an objective in turn 1 is worth 1vp, the same objective in turn 5 is worth 5vp.
 

That would lead to more ramping up of fights over more valuable objectives later on, but give you a reason to try and hold it earlier. It also gives players more decisions about risk/reward for their actions, and having more decision points leads to better gaming experiences in my humble opinion.

[Brofist]

22 hours ago, arnesh88 said:

What other examples are there of porting 40k into 30k besides the mission pack? I haven't seen any other content pointing to this.

 

They were one of the loudest voices for why 30k should move to 8th edition. Now they're back. Otherwise, just take a look at this mission pack- its a pretty clear attempt at making 30k missions play in the flavor of 40k events.

 

SkimaskMohawk already talked about some elements of this, so I'll pick on one he didn't cover. 'Fast play your games after they're over'. That's 100% a 40k tournament thing, skinned to work with the progressive scoring they added. 40k games can go up to 100 VP with final standings based on total points scored. So you need to move your models around unopposed after you table somebody to get as many VP as you can. There's a whole metagame around secondary objectives and which armies are strong or weak based on this mechanic. It's exhausting and it promotes a pretty toxic attitude. Compare that to the mechanics created by the studio in heresy rules. Very different approaches to the game.

 

I'll never knock the effort people put into fan supplements, but each one of them often comes with baggage. The baggage with this one is that it wants the missions to play more like 40k. Maybe you want that? That's cool too.

[Mandragola]

3 hours ago, SkimaskMohawk said:

So in light of today's daemons, the current goonhammer progressive scoring got a lot trickier. Traitor esoterists can summon daemons from turn 1, who can then charge; the total threat range being about 35". Daemons got ap3, initiative 5 and fear; perfect for bullying basic scoring units and pinning units in place. And that's not saying anything about the two characters getting dumped in, instead of three brutes. 

 

 

I don’t think these new daemons are much of an issue for tacticals in midfield. There are already loads of things that can sweep them away. These brutes aren’t unusually scary, and actually won’t enjoy overwatch from tacticals. I think they’ll be an extremely rare unit and no big deal when they do show up. 
 

Traitors have to contend with custodians marching into the midfield and claiming all the objectives. That’s a much bigger issue for progressive scoring (or any kind of scoring) than these non-Line daemon units. 

[arnesh88]

3 hours ago, Brofist said:

They were one of the loudest voices for why 30k should move to 8th edition. Now they're back. Otherwise, just take a look at this mission pack- its a pretty clear attempt at making 30k missions play in the flavor of 40k events.

A lot of people were assuming change over to 8th edition rules, it wasn't just Goonhammer. Spikey Bits, BoLS, Winters SEO, a lot of the community. That was a common discussion in the hobby because it happened with the jump from 5th edition to 6th edition for both HH and 40k. I was even in the discussion, and glad I was wrong.

 

We also already discussed the missions being based similar to 40k/AoS. That's not additional evidence, that's restating it.

 

3 hours ago, Brofist said:

SkimaskMohawk already talked about some elements of this, so I'll pick on one he didn't cover. 'Fast play your games after they're over'. That's 100% a 40k tournament thing, skinned to work with the progressive scoring they added.

It's a section of the packet I missed, I lean in yours and SkimaskMowhawks position that Fast Play or additional turns aren't necessary. It's fine if a game ends in a tie. HH currently is primarily narrative with some competition (otherwise, we wouldn't keep track of Victory Points). I'm in favor of pulling back on that competitive rule, or at the very least, make it optional.

 

3 hours ago, Brofist said:

I'll never knock the effort people put into fan supplements, but each one of them often comes with baggage. The baggage with this one is that it wants the missions to play more like 40k. Maybe you want that? That's cool too.

The mission pack certainly does share DNA with the format of 40k/AoS missions. It's not inherently good or bad, because it's not the sole reason of success or failure of their respective games. The Goonhammer Mission Packet doesn't do secondaries like 40k in which you get to pick which ones you're going to pursue, but instead still sticking to it being mission specific (which I already critiqued on for being the same across the board). 40k is currently my least favorite game out of the big 3, but my complaints about it are along the same lines as a lot of other players in that it's cool ideas poorly implemented and bloated across the board (giant list I won't get into now). 40k missions are towards the bottom of my complaints. The reason I'm in favor of at least trying out these missions and giving feedback is because I've voiced elsewhere on the forums that the current missions in Horus Heresy is the weakest part of the game, and is the easiest thing for the community to mess around with because it's not changing the core rules or adjusting units points/rules. It's a flexible work around for the time being, and just changes how to measure success or failure in a game.

 

Goonhammer is starting from a base they're familiar with, the 40k missions. And the current author is known to be a tournament player. While I think he has good intentions of making the game more interactive and dynamic, I think it's important that if we don't want it to be pushed into a competitive direction, then we test and point out where in the missions specifically to pull back a bit on such rules. Saying "it's like 40k, and that's bad" isn't good criticism. Test it out and be more specific. Worst case scenario, you try a few games, it's really not jiving with you, you go back to the core book rules.

Edited March 14, 2023 by arnesh88

[SkimaskMohawk]

29 minutes ago, Mandragola said:

I don’t think these new daemons are much of an issue for tacticals in midfield. There are already loads of things that can sweep them away. These brutes aren’t unusually scary, and actually won’t enjoy overwatch from tacticals. I think they’ll be an extremely rare unit and no big deal when they do show up. 
 

Traitors have to contend with custodians marching into the midfield and claiming all the objectives. That’s a much bigger issue for progressive scoring (or any kind of scoring) than these non-Line daemon units. 

 

Midfield? It's the backfield, the deployment zone. Armies deploy 24" apart, and the guy can threaten things 35" away with a daemon unit. They can even do it off the return fire or overwatch for an extra movement.

 

3 brutes with malevolent artifice lose a model to the full 20 fury overwatch, but will win combat and suffer 0.7 wounds back and then contest the objective for the progressive scoring. A couple esoterists tossing brutes and/or Samus to chow on vulnerable line units/null objectives. To say nothing of khabanda.

 

Not sure how custodes are only a traitor problem; they're strong against both allegiances when they build into guardians. They also lose effectiveness if they have to stand on the points instead of pushing straight in with all their forces. 

 

 

[Mandragola]

I’m a dead-eyed WAAC tournament junkie, and someone who knows Lupe a bit. The accusation that he’s a tournament 40K player is false. 
 

Progressive scoring isn’t something that was invented for 9th edition 40K. They’ve used it for these missions because they like it, not because it’s like 40K. The goonhammer 30k crowd barely touch 40K. 

[Petitioner's City]

16 minutes ago, Mandragola said:

I’m a dead-eyed WAAC tournament junkie, and someone who knows Lupe a bit. The accusation that he’s a tournament 40K player is false. 
 

Progressive scoring isn’t something that was invented for 9th edition 40K. They’ve used it for these missions because they like it, not because it’s like 40K. The goonhammer 30k crowd barely touch 40K. 

 

Yeah a member of the group I play with met one of the 30k goonhammerers in Gibraltar and was invited to give feedback on the missions, and they don't seem to be in any way a 40k player - that kind of 'this is too 40k' thinking seems to be very snobbish and misinformed.

 

But if you know Lupe, can you get them to edit off that weird comment about Graham McNeil on the thousand sons painting article - it's such a bad comment :( 

[WrathOfTheLion]

42 minutes ago, Mandragola said:

I’m a dead-eyed WAAC tournament junkie, and someone who knows Lupe a bit. The accusation that he’s a tournament 40K player is false. 
 

Progressive scoring isn’t something that was invented for 9th edition 40K. They’ve used it for these missions because they like it, not because it’s like 40K. The goonhammer 30k crowd barely touch 40K. 

That's perhaps not the wisest way to refer to someone they're asking a favor of.

Edited March 14, 2023 by WrathOfTheLion
Clarity

[MegaVolt87]

On 3/14/2023 at 5:07 AM, arnesh88 said:

What other examples are there of porting 40k into 30k besides the mission pack? I haven't seen any other content pointing to this.

 

Doesn't matter, we should be keeping the 40k anything out of HH. That's why a lot of people are here in the first place to get away from modern 40k. 

[Dont-Be-Haten]

1 hour ago, Mandragola said:

Progressive scoring isn’t something that was invented for 9th edition 40K. They’ve used it for these missions because they like it, not because it’s like 40K. The goonhammer 30k crowd barely touch 40K. 

 

Progressive scoring is fun. It adds an element to the game outside of stagnant scoring. One of my favorite missions is the representation that data is being transferred to high command, and the longer the link is established, the more advantage that faction gains. 

 

Another way to look at it other than giving Intel or processing battlefield layout that leads to advantages later on during the story is holding the line until reinforcements arrive. Or think of it like Annex missions or King of the hill.

 

I also love increasing/decreasing kill points throughout a mission. Which gives the feel of wasting ammunition from wave after wave of units. (That isn't in this packet, but one I enjoy when doing campaign missions)

Edited March 14, 2023 by Dont-Be-Haten

[General Zodd]

18 minutes ago, MegaVolt87 said:

 

Doesn't matter, we should be keeping the 40k anything out of HH. That's why a lot of people are here in the first place to get away from modern 40k. 

I’m no lover of modern 40k, I’ve not played it seriously since about 6th Ed, and not at all since 8th Ed. Returning to Heresy has been a bit of a homecoming for me.

 

That said, I’m so out of the loop with 40k I had no idea progressive point scoring was a new 40k thing. I have played other games with missions like that, however, and think it has a place. Just because 40k uses a rule mechanic shouldn’t automatically rule it out for use elsewhere. The concept has to stand on its own two feet.

 

And again, I go back to the point of variety. I don’t play HH for tournaments, so I don’t need to worry about getting reps in on “official” scenarios. I want a range of different challenges to keep games fresh and mix up what makes a good army so that stale metas don’t form. As far as that’s concerned having more missions to choose from *as well* not *instead of* can only be a positive thing. If I try them and I don’t like them, I’ll send my feedback and give them a rest!

[Brofist]

3 hours ago, arnesh88 said:

I think it's important that if we don't want it to be pushed into a competitive direction, then we test and point out where in the missions specifically to pull back a bit on such rules. Test it out and be more specific. Worst case scenario, you try a few games, it's really not jiving with you, you go back to the core book rules.

 

I agree bigly with your main point here. Its up to us, the community, to shape our hobby in the direction we want it to grow. This thread is a good example of the passion we all have. New cool missions is one way it can evolve and be exciting. Play the game you want to play and if that includes something like this who cares have fun :) 

 

But... the burden isn't on the community to playtest supplements. Especially when they're making changes to game mechanics. That's a challenge most supplements run into, of course. One way or another, they're changing the balance of the game fitting some vision. That's what I mean by baggage. If you're on one side of it, it feels good, if you're on the other, it feels bad. This one is clearly coming at it with its own ideas about what's fun, so its probably not surprising there are some polarized perspectives.

 

3 hours ago, arnesh88 said:

Saying "it's like 40k, and that's bad" isn't good criticism.

 

Well, its probably disingenuous to say people are critical only in some categorical way and not because of specific things they don't like. Most of us played 40k or are refugees from its 'embrace'. If you've been playing for a decade, you know mechanics, you know the business model, and you have a good idea about what you like and what you don't. Why would those things be invalid for feeling a way about something? It seems like there are some valid mechanical critiques about this supplement in this thread and their comment section.

[SkimaskMohawk]

16 hours ago, arnesh88 said:

I've voiced elsewhere on the forums that the current missions in Horus Heresy is the weakest part of the game,

 

This is very true.

 

The core missions generally suck, and, as has been pointed out in this thread, can combine with certain deployments to cause some really lopsided games. 

 

Ive mentioned a few times over the years that these missions and deployments feel like a narrative set up without really any of the story. And guess what? They mostly all come from Book 1's campaign section.

 

 

They were also meant to be played from 1500-2500, which is, um, about 250-500 points less then than it now is, and certainly not the pretended "the game is designed for 3000" clause that's found in the core rules.

 

The old 6th edition missions are pretty good to expand out to, as they were actually designed for pickup games, don't really rely on kill points to determine the winner, and actually focus on objective play.

[Noserenda]

I actually think the first time I played progressive scoring was at a Tempus fugitives event, likely a heresy one :D