The Talvir Campaign (Initial Thoughts Inquiry and Mission Switch Poll)

An area for players to gather and communicate about the club or Warhammer in general. If you aren't sure where a topic should go, start here.

Thoughts on the proposed change to mission selection

Poll ended at Sun Apr 28, 2019 2:23 pm

Change the mission selection to what was proposed.
4
67%
Keep it the way it is.
2
33%
 
Total votes: 6
User avatar
Connman234
Officer
Posts: 663
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 1:41 pm
Name: Spencer Connell
Experience Level: Intermediate
Play Style: Casual+Competitive
Armies: Marines, Ad-Mech, Zerkers, Necrons, Nids
Location: Wakefield, MA

The Talvir Campaign (Initial Thoughts Inquiry and Mission Switch Poll)

Postby Connman234 » Mon Apr 15, 2019 2:23 pm

Hey Guys. I'm really glad at the turnout and excitement from the first week of games. I wanted to see what people thought about the first week and the overall campaign structure so far. If you have any other thoughts and comments, feel free to reply with your opinions.

I do know that many people were not happy about the Narrative Mission they were forced to play. My goal was to try to have the campaign work closely to how it was structured to the campaign book, but it does lead to problems due to how we do not know the mission before we play it.

With that said, here is my proposed change.
We use the matched play missions in the packet only. The matched play missions are designed to be both eternal war or maelstrom, so you can just bounce back and forth between games.
So like before, we keep the attacker/defender mechanic, but the defender also gets to pick the matched play mission.

Here is how it would work for example.
Gold Team attacks a territory defended by Green Team.
Gold Team would initiate the attack and determine the number of players attacking.
Blue Team would determine the pairings and which matched play mission they want to play (You may 'Gentleman's agreement' on whether Eternal War or Maelstrom if you desire).
"Let Justice be Done. Though the Heavens Fall"

Image
User avatar
BrotherRaff
Member
Posts: 60
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2017 6:54 pm
Name: Dan W.
Experience Level: Novice
Play Style: Casual
Armies: Adeptus Ministorum

Re: The Talvir Campaign (Initial Thoughts Inquiry and Mission Switch Poll)

Postby BrotherRaff » Mon Apr 15, 2019 3:23 pm

Hey Spencer- I think you did a helluva job yesterday. These things are tough to run and organizing a bunch of gamers is like herding cats. I had a great time, am looking forward to more, and appreciate the work behind what you're doing.

BTW, I assume you mean "GREEN team would determine the pairings....." above?
User avatar
AngelusSperi
Member
Posts: 162
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2016 12:37 am
Name: Jon
Experience Level: Experienced
Play Style: Casual
Armies: Marines (Blood Angels/Salamanders)

Re: The Talvir Campaign (Initial Thoughts Inquiry and Mission Switch Poll)

Postby AngelusSperi » Mon Apr 15, 2019 10:32 pm

Wanted to double check, but the assumption is that even if we switch to using the maelstrom/eternal war missions, that the X marked set-piece battles are still played as is?

Will also note that I feel torn: I was looking forward to this campaign a lot since I remember how unique the missions in Konor were and was hoping to be using a wide variety of things mission to mission like in that event, rather than just take the same TAC 2k list every week in a general sandbox mission (cuz that's basically what a normal Sunday at the bunker is like).

I know the way this thing is designed doesn't lend itself to previewing the narrative mission ahead of time, so was wondering if anyone else felt the same about wanting these unusual mission types and if so do they have any ideas for making it work?

(Sorta the best I got is to have one list for Attacker and one list for Defender so you pick based on what you end up doing, but I also understand the added complications with this).
Image
User avatar
CHAPLAIN T
Posts: 92
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2017 9:07 am
Name: Ian R.
Experience Level: Advanced
Play Style: Casual
Armies: ULTRAMARINES 1ST COMPANY

Re: The Talvir Campaign (Initial Thoughts Inquiry and Mission Switch Poll)

Postby CHAPLAIN T » Mon Apr 15, 2019 11:25 pm

Hey Spencer! Thanks for the efforts you've made thus far. Its true; organizing gamers is no easy feat lol! You are appreciated!

I think you're head's in the right place. The narrative missions are supposed to shake things up and deliver something cool and thematic over your regularly scheduled Sunday games. I love that shit! Please dont take out the cool scenarios! But, it does require more forewarning/planning in order to make it work. In many cases, the lists need to be tailored to fit the mission (that's the fun of Narrative games!). Pairing up the armies/units for these kinds of things is pretty crucial. Some of them are best played without FLY-keyword units. In others, you want as many FLY units as you can get! But, if you DO plan it out in advance, it's what Warhammer is made of! Its incredibly rewarding!

If we could somehow alter our gameplay on Sundays to *conclude* with drawing up the next week's missions and/or match-ups, THAT would be badass! If you know what your team is getting into, then you can get SUPER PUMPED with your teammates about TOSSIN' SUCKAS! You'll have to decide which people (and how many) on your team fight the special scenarios. If there are any campaign bonuses in play that might affect your army list, you would then have time to consider them. For example, I know our team can likely use a certain strategem that grants our Warlords a shot at taking an extra Cityfight Warlord Trait, cuz of some neat shit we took (re: purge). Cool, but it would help if I could reap those campaign benefits over a week of armchair general-ing, and come up with a neat thematic package.

Like any son of Ultramar, I want as thorough an understanding of the battle as possible before shit hits the chainsword.
User avatar
Draaen
Member
Posts: 418
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 4:02 pm
Name: Mark
Experience Level: Advanced
Play Style: Casual+Competitive
Armies: Tau, Space Marines, Daemons

Re: The Talvir Campaign (Initial Thoughts Inquiry and Mission Switch Poll)

Postby Draaen » Tue Apr 16, 2019 12:21 am

I think the random nature of the missions and your opponents is nice. It encourages well balanced lists able to play any mission and gets people playing different missions they otherwise wouldn't which was part of the charm for me. So long as people still play with matched play rules the only thing different is the scenario.

I think if you allowed the defender to choose the match ups and the missions the advantage would be too significant.
Game Preferences:
Current Beta rules in effect
I'm happy to play lower points levels with people who are staring out or building up new forces
Fair warning my doofy daemons have 3rd party models, scratch builds, old warhammer models and I haven't moved all their bases over to the 40k ones yet! Happy to switch to either Tau or White Scars.
User avatar
MrScotty
Officer
Posts: 1685
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 10:55 am
Name: Scott Mechler
Experience Level: Advanced
Play Style: Casual+Competitive
Armies: All of Them

Re: The Talvir Campaign (Initial Thoughts Inquiry and Mission Switch Poll)

Postby MrScotty » Tue Apr 16, 2019 7:37 am

Well, I think there is some value in keeping in mind we are fighting over an imaginary city with plastic male-coded dolls for no prize here. If some players are attached to the "balanced TAC list" format and others prefer a more semi-collaborative approach where the players select a mission and try to bring armies that fit that scenario best, well...we choose who plays who, don't we?

I think for my part I'm just going to start bringing my whole pool of available models with me, and if I get into a scenario where someone wants to play a narrative custom game, I"ll gladly do that.

I do think maybe at least part of the campaign stage could be done during the in-between period through the forum so we could set that up in advance. I understand not everyone can hang around until the last game is done to do the next week's campaign stage.
Game Preferences:
A model may assault upper levels of terrain if they charge far enough to climb them
All current beta rules in effect unless opponent prefers otherwise
I love setting up custom, fluffy scenarios, PM me!
User avatar
CHAPLAIN T
Posts: 92
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2017 9:07 am
Name: Ian R.
Experience Level: Advanced
Play Style: Casual
Armies: ULTRAMARINES 1ST COMPANY

Re: The Talvir Campaign (Initial Thoughts Inquiry and Mission Switch Poll)

Postby CHAPLAIN T » Tue Apr 16, 2019 9:13 am

Scotty, I think that's a pretty decent idea. My concern would be with slowing down the process of getting a game going. However, if there's little pressure to finish by a certain time (and most of the campaign stuff is moved to the forum where its accessible 24/7), I think that slowdown wouldnt be an issue. If people wanted to play with PL to make list-building faster and easier for on-the-fly campaigning, that could work too. My lists are often complicated and heavy with wargear choices, so last minute point-for-point building would be tougher for me. PL makes it quick and easy, but I'm pretty sold on the idea of getting precisely what i pay for. I dunno.
User avatar
MrScotty
Officer
Posts: 1685
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 10:55 am
Name: Scott Mechler
Experience Level: Advanced
Play Style: Casual+Competitive
Armies: All of Them

Re: The Talvir Campaign (Initial Thoughts Inquiry and Mission Switch Poll)

Postby MrScotty » Tue Apr 16, 2019 12:07 pm

CHAPLAIN T wrote:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 9:13 am
Scotty, I think that's a pretty decent idea. My concern would be with slowing down the process of getting a game going. However, if there's little pressure to finish by a certain time (and most of the campaign stuff is moved to the forum where its accessible 24/7), I think that slowdown wouldnt be an issue. If people wanted to play with PL to make list-building faster and easier for on-the-fly campaigning, that could work too. My lists are often complicated and heavy with wargear choices, so last minute point-for-point building would be tougher for me. PL makes it quick and easy, but I'm pretty sold on the idea of getting precisely what i pay for. I dunno.
I think my litmus test so far on power level is that if its use or not use would significantly alter the way you'd structure your list, you probably shouldn't bother with it, and instead just set your scenario and go for points.

I think the benefit of power level is you can look at a mission like "thunder run" and see that it's supposed to be a chase into entrenched resistance, so you can quickly throw together a list for the attacker that's mechanized and a more defensive, entrenched list for the defender and try to capture the cinematic feel of one force trying to crash through the other.

Basically I'd use Power Level if you're willing to semi-remove list construction from your calculus the same way you normally remove scenario and deployment map. If that bugs you, and you'd rather be trying to optimize the performance of your list, then points is a more fair way to do that.

Both attitudes are equally fine, and I'd argue both are equally good for creating a test of skill, the former just relies on applying restrictions on yourself that don't come from hard limitations imposed by the base ruleset, and instead accepting soft limitations recommended by the scenario.
Game Preferences:
A model may assault upper levels of terrain if they charge far enough to climb them
All current beta rules in effect unless opponent prefers otherwise
I love setting up custom, fluffy scenarios, PM me!
User avatar
AngelusSperi
Member
Posts: 162
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2016 12:37 am
Name: Jon
Experience Level: Experienced
Play Style: Casual
Armies: Marines (Blood Angels/Salamanders)

Re: The Talvir Campaign (Initial Thoughts Inquiry and Mission Switch Poll)

Postby AngelusSperi » Tue Apr 16, 2019 1:19 pm

MrScotty wrote:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 12:07 pm
CHAPLAIN T wrote:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 9:13 am
Scotty, I think that's a pretty decent idea. My concern would be with slowing down the process of getting a game going. However, if there's little pressure to finish by a certain time (and most of the campaign stuff is moved to the forum where its accessible 24/7), I think that slowdown wouldnt be an issue. If people wanted to play with PL to make list-building faster and easier for on-the-fly campaigning, that could work too. My lists are often complicated and heavy with wargear choices, so last minute point-for-point building would be tougher for me. PL makes it quick and easy, but I'm pretty sold on the idea of getting precisely what i pay for. I dunno.
I think my litmus test so far on power level is that if its use or not use would significantly alter the way you'd structure your list, you probably shouldn't bother with it, and instead just set your scenario and go for points.

I think the benefit of power level is you can look at a mission like "thunder run" and see that it's supposed to be a chase into entrenched resistance, so you can quickly throw together a list for the attacker that's mechanized and a more defensive, entrenched list for the defender and try to capture the cinematic feel of one force trying to crash through the other.

Basically I'd use Power Level if you're willing to semi-remove list construction from your calculus the same way you normally remove scenario and deployment map. If that bugs you, and you'd rather be trying to optimize the performance of your list, then points is a more fair way to do that.

Both attitudes are equally fine, and I'd argue both are equally good for creating a test of skill, the former just relies on applying restrictions on yourself that don't come from hard limitations imposed by the base ruleset, and instead accepting soft limitations recommended by the scenario.
When 8th first dropped, PL was pretty neat. Unfortunately, it seems they missed the broad side of a barn so badly with Space Marines that our points needed so much adjusting that now our maximum costs are now equal to or a tad under the PL equivalent, so if SM use PL then we're seriously hurting ourselves. Here's waiting for Codex 2.0 XD hahaha.

On the note of missions, I would totally be chill with somehow sorting out who plays what (or at least what mission) ahead of time.
Image
User avatar
MrScotty
Officer
Posts: 1685
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 10:55 am
Name: Scott Mechler
Experience Level: Advanced
Play Style: Casual+Competitive
Armies: All of Them

Re: The Talvir Campaign (Initial Thoughts Inquiry and Mission Switch Poll)

Postby MrScotty » Tue Apr 16, 2019 3:31 pm

AngelusSperi wrote:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 1:19 pm
MrScotty wrote:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 12:07 pm
CHAPLAIN T wrote:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 9:13 am
Scotty, I think that's a pretty decent idea. My concern would be with slowing down the process of getting a game going. However, if there's little pressure to finish by a certain time (and most of the campaign stuff is moved to the forum where its accessible 24/7), I think that slowdown wouldnt be an issue. If people wanted to play with PL to make list-building faster and easier for on-the-fly campaigning, that could work too. My lists are often complicated and heavy with wargear choices, so last minute point-for-point building would be tougher for me. PL makes it quick and easy, but I'm pretty sold on the idea of getting precisely what i pay for. I dunno.
I think my litmus test so far on power level is that if its use or not use would significantly alter the way you'd structure your list, you probably shouldn't bother with it, and instead just set your scenario and go for points.

I think the benefit of power level is you can look at a mission like "thunder run" and see that it's supposed to be a chase into entrenched resistance, so you can quickly throw together a list for the attacker that's mechanized and a more defensive, entrenched list for the defender and try to capture the cinematic feel of one force trying to crash through the other.

Basically I'd use Power Level if you're willing to semi-remove list construction from your calculus the same way you normally remove scenario and deployment map. If that bugs you, and you'd rather be trying to optimize the performance of your list, then points is a more fair way to do that.

Both attitudes are equally fine, and I'd argue both are equally good for creating a test of skill, the former just relies on applying restrictions on yourself that don't come from hard limitations imposed by the base ruleset, and instead accepting soft limitations recommended by the scenario.
When 8th first dropped, PL was pretty neat. Unfortunately, it seems they missed the broad side of a barn so badly with Space Marines that our points needed so much adjusting that now our maximum costs are now equal to or a tad under the PL equivalent, so if SM use PL then we're seriously hurting ourselves. Here's waiting for Codex 2.0 XD hahaha.

On the note of missions, I would totally be chill with somehow sorting out who plays what (or at least what mission) ahead of time.
That's true. Looking over my various lists in battlescribe, if I played by power level I'd end up with about 10-15% fewer points if I played my space marines (Which are deathwatch), 10% more if I played my Drukhari, 10% less if I played my Harlequins, roughly even if I played my Orks. And as you experienced yourself on Sunday, most Narrative missions can be pretty much deconstructed into pointless exercises with a small bit of thought in the list-building stage. Even if you hadn't seized the initiative, your game probably would have been just as over at the bottom of turn 1 as it was at the top.

If you are looking for a framework in which you can take a set mission, a set terrain arrangement, and then the part where you're competing against your opponent is in the way you choose to set up your list and the decisions you make in the game, matched points and missions are definitely the best system for that. If the relative balance between factions is a thing that bothers you and knowing that you have 5-10% fewer resources to start with than your opponent in the more granular point system is something that's likely to cheapen the experience and make it feel less fair, then playing a mission that is likely to include something that feels hugely unfair and out of your control is probably setting yourself up to be annoyed.

There's nothing wrong with that, it's the default way people tend to play the game in the kind of public, uncontrolled settings that we operate in. And it's not like games are automatically more fun if you stop worrying and love the bomb. If you swap your lists from points to power level and try to roll a random narrative mission the way you'd set up a matched play pickup game, you'll have a lot more unsatisfying one-sided victories and unfair defeats.

I think the most time-effective way to get the least games that feel like unfair stomps and the most that feel like tight, satisfying contests is to use as exact and granular a points structure as possible, place restrictions only on yourself and assume your opponent is coming at you as hard as they can, and play missions that are as even as possible.

The only downside to it is after a while, there's only so many scenarios you can really create with that kind of framework. And sometimes I just want to make up totally new shit, or I watch a scene in a movie or a cutscene in a video game and I really want to try and make something that captures that feel, and I just can't do it in a way that's satisfying unless me and the person I'm playing against sit down and approach the game more like you approach the opposition between players in an RPG and the GM. Figure out what we both want to get out of it, and what would be frustrating, and build our lists like the last scene in the incredibles when Dash is in the track meet. Winning is successfully constructing a scenario where both of our armies get to do cool stuff, losing is fucking up the lists or the missions and ending up with something one sided.

I don't think there is a single right way to do things and I can definitely acknowledge and respect the feeling that approaching a game like that can make winning the scenario feel like something you didn't earn, and losing the scenario like something you didn't deserve because you set up too many restrictions or gave your opponent too many advantages. I've just played the game for a long-ass time at this point and I've done the following the competitive meta thing for a long time.
Game Preferences:
A model may assault upper levels of terrain if they charge far enough to climb them
All current beta rules in effect unless opponent prefers otherwise
I love setting up custom, fluffy scenarios, PM me!