An update concerning where I'm up to in creating a scenario for the FtW group's November challenge.
In the previous posting, I outlined that I wanted my creation to represent a small scale action that was a significant part of a larger scale campaign. It basically amounts to a small strike team trying to get away with some vital artifact or piece of information.
From the start, I'll say that this idea is not a rare or unusual one: Ranillon's most excellent discourse on how hard it is to come up with something truly original without changing the fundamental rules is spot on and resonates with me as an old-timer. This idea has been done before and will be done again no doubt.
After talking with Gamers World and reading his posts on an idea similar to this one (see Within Enemy Lines), I wanted to differentiate my Gauntlet idea significantly in order to create something relatively new that people may not have seen before and something that attempts to be balanced, general and accessible.
So, what are the twists that this scenario will have on this classic idea?
(1) The loot will be carried by one miniature that the protagonist's player will choose in secret. The identity of this loot-carrying miniature will only be revealed at the end of the game. This'll add a tactical aspect: do the interceptors think that the fast attack squad has the loot, or is that far too obvious?
(2) Gauntlet will have no option to be drawn: there will be two shades of win and two shades of loss, depending on whether the loot carrier got away or not and the degree of survival of each side.
(3) The mission will be non-standard. It makes little sense to have heavy support choices among a team of lightning fast raiders: they should concentrate on fast attack and troops choices. On the other hand, the interceptors player will effectively control two lots of force organization charts. This is to represent two disparate aspects of the local militia reacting to news of the theft. They'll enter play at different points.
(4) The game will only end once there are no miniatures belonging to the raiders player left on the board.
(5) Miniatures can only be moved off the board at the start of the protagonist's turn. This means they have to move into contact the board edge in their previous turn, hence the opposition gets at least one last chance to engage them.
The final bit of progress that I've made is in sketching up the map for this scenario. As can be seen, it'll be played on a (relatively) small board. This implies that a small(ish) points value should be used by both players. A small points value will also mean that this scenario is accessible to starting players and more experienced players alike. As well, it should give the feeling that the Gauntlet scenario is a small-scale skirmish between the lighting fast raiders player and the interceptors player. The scenario is sufficiently general that I reckon that any faction / codex could take on the role of the raiders or the interceptors - this was an important consideration for my selecting this scenario over more precise / narrow scenarios I considered. Lastly, I hope it is obvious why I'm calling this one Gauntlet: the raiders are having to dash between two lots of interceptors down a narrow corridor across the board.
In the previous posting, I outlined that I wanted my creation to represent a small scale action that was a significant part of a larger scale campaign. It basically amounts to a small strike team trying to get away with some vital artifact or piece of information.
From the start, I'll say that this idea is not a rare or unusual one: Ranillon's most excellent discourse on how hard it is to come up with something truly original without changing the fundamental rules is spot on and resonates with me as an old-timer. This idea has been done before and will be done again no doubt.
After talking with Gamers World and reading his posts on an idea similar to this one (see Within Enemy Lines), I wanted to differentiate my Gauntlet idea significantly in order to create something relatively new that people may not have seen before and something that attempts to be balanced, general and accessible.
So, what are the twists that this scenario will have on this classic idea?
(1) The loot will be carried by one miniature that the protagonist's player will choose in secret. The identity of this loot-carrying miniature will only be revealed at the end of the game. This'll add a tactical aspect: do the interceptors think that the fast attack squad has the loot, or is that far too obvious?
(2) Gauntlet will have no option to be drawn: there will be two shades of win and two shades of loss, depending on whether the loot carrier got away or not and the degree of survival of each side.
(3) The mission will be non-standard. It makes little sense to have heavy support choices among a team of lightning fast raiders: they should concentrate on fast attack and troops choices. On the other hand, the interceptors player will effectively control two lots of force organization charts. This is to represent two disparate aspects of the local militia reacting to news of the theft. They'll enter play at different points.
(4) The game will only end once there are no miniatures belonging to the raiders player left on the board.
(5) Miniatures can only be moved off the board at the start of the protagonist's turn. This means they have to move into contact the board edge in their previous turn, hence the opposition gets at least one last chance to engage them.
The final bit of progress that I've made is in sketching up the map for this scenario. As can be seen, it'll be played on a (relatively) small board. This implies that a small(ish) points value should be used by both players. A small points value will also mean that this scenario is accessible to starting players and more experienced players alike. As well, it should give the feeling that the Gauntlet scenario is a small-scale skirmish between the lighting fast raiders player and the interceptors player. The scenario is sufficiently general that I reckon that any faction / codex could take on the role of the raiders or the interceptors - this was an important consideration for my selecting this scenario over more precise / narrow scenarios I considered. Lastly, I hope it is obvious why I'm calling this one Gauntlet: the raiders are having to dash between two lots of interceptors down a narrow corridor across the board.
4 comments:
Thanks for the link it looks like your idea will turn out well.
You're right, Ranillon's post brought up a number of great points about something that seems so simple on the surface.
It's deceptive really. The good missions seem so easy but once you get into them and how they are constructed, you realize just how much work went into them.
I'm liking the smaller scale of this one here. I thought it would be interesting when the Challenge was posed to the group to leave it open ended and see where the members gravitated in points values. If anyone would come in with skirmish type games or Apoc size missions.
I'm looking forward to seeing the end result.
Oh I forgot thanks for the link.
Hi Guys, thanks for the comments. Ron, you are absolutley correct: it is very deceptive. This challenge has really got me thinking - so much so, that I might develop some abandoned ideas further at a later date.
Post a Comment