Maelstrom Missions: Nope, thats not narrative gaming.

[Defenestratus]

Not a bad idea. Just add that you reroll any objective that are literally impossible to achieve (destroy a building when there are none to destroy).

Indeed... this is how it worked in 2nd edition. You would draw a mission card. You wouldn't know what your opponent had so while you were trying to achieve your objective, he was trying to achieve his. Of course there was the ubiquitous kill points mission so you were still trying to kill each other at the same time.

It made for some awesome types of games where you could figure out what his mission was during the course of the game through his actions (Why is that squad of plague marines just sitting on that backfield objective all day? Why are you shooting literally everything in your army at my psyker?), or you wouldn't know until the end where it was revealed.

[Caitsidhe]

To me, Narrative gaming means there is a scenario with key defined objectives defined. For example:

Evacuate the Populace (the Holding Action):

In this scenario, one army is attempting to destroy or at the very least delay invaders while key noncombatants escape. The battlefield represents a choke point wherein the holding action is best fought. The idea is to prevent enemy ground units from getting past to do their worst to those you are supposed to be protecting. It doesn't matter if you are Imperial or Chaos, there is always somebody or something that is worth protecting and evacuating. There are several special rules for this scenario.

1. The attacker deploys first and will go first unless the defender steals the initiative.
2. The defender gets to place two pieces of terrain for every one the attacker places on the battlefield.
3. Outflank within the defender's deployment zone is impossible due to geographical barriers, i.e. the battlefield on the defender's side is flanked by impassable terrain.
3. The attacker decides if the first turn is Night Fight or not.
4. For every reduction of (200)pts the defender chooses to take in army points compared to the attacker, he/she starts the game with one VP.
5. For every ground unit the attacker manages to move off the defending player's edge, he/she gains a VP. Such units are gone for the rest of the game.
6. Three objectives are placed on the defender's half of the table, one by the attacker and two by the defender that represent important items/people to be evacuated. At the Top of Turn-3 one of these objectives will randomly be selected and removed from the table. It has been evacuated. The top of Turn-4 will randomly select another, and the top of Turn-5 will remove the last one. The attacker will get one VP for each one of these objectives taken, i.e. they are holding it when it vanishes, while the defender will get a point for each objective that vanishes whether they are holding it or no one holds it when it happens.

In short, this is a scenario dedicated to narrative play which sets clear objectives which will also have random elements provided by the players. The defender wants to evacuate objectives from the battlefield and prevent any ground units from exiting the table on his/her deployment edge. The attacker wishes to get those objectives before they escape and get past the defender. The terrain will heavily favor the defender.

[Lord Asterion]

If you're getting the same objective multiple times, you're not reading the rules properly.

And they can be narrative, your force is getting through orders as the battle rages. You just have to use your imagination.

[Caitsidhe]

If you're getting the same objective multiple times, you're not reading the rules properly.

And they can be narrative, your force is getting through orders as the battle rages. You just have to use your imagination.

No, with all due respect, it isn't the least bit narrative. It is Candyland disguised for adults. I drew a card I can play... YAY! I drew a bad card... booo. So far I just keep tabling my opponent. I will continue to do so as long as they do idiotic things going after crazy objectives they can't hold or make no sense. I have already played seven games using these rules and the outcome is always the same. The winner is likely the one with a good draw. Once I realized this, I simply ignore the cards. If I happen to be sitting on one, great. If not, I am going to table my opponent. If my opponent is so foolish as to stretch themselves out and do the wonky thing required to try and earn cards they aren't already sitting on, it just makes it easier for me. I have not lost a game since I have adopted this strategy.

[Lord Asterion]

No, with all due respect, it isn't the least bit narrative. It is Candyland disguised for adults. I drew a card I can play... YAY! I drew a bad card... booo. So far I just keep tabling my opponent. I will continue to do so as long as they do idiotic things going after crazy objectives they can't hold or make no sense. I have already played seven games using these rules and the outcome is always the same. The winner is likely the one with a good draw. Once I realized this, I simply ignore the cards. If I happen to be sitting on one, great. If not, I am going to table my opponent. If my opponent is so foolish as to stretch themselves out and do the wonky thing required to try and earn cards they aren't already sitting on, it just makes it easier for me. I have not lost a game since I have adopted this strategy.

As I said, you have to use your imagination, your force is receiving orders, things change in the heat of battle and you have to accomplish different things.

And once your opponent figures out how to get more objectives and avoid getting tabled, then you'll lose.

I'm sorry that you don't like adapting the game to the new missions, stick to the old ones, but I enjoy them and they change the game up.

[Caitsidhe]

As I said, you have to use your imagination, your force is receiving orders, things change in the heat of battle and you have to accomplish different things.

And once your opponent figures out how to get more objectives and avoid getting tabled, then you'll lose.

I'm sorry that you don't like adapting the game to the new missions, stick to the old ones, but I enjoy them and they change the game up.

I grant you that they let people with little to no skill win games. That is the same premise of Candyland that uses a spinner.

[Lord Asterion]

I grant you that they let people with little to no skill win games. That is the same premise of Candyland that uses a spinner.

Yeah, no skill. There is no skill in reacting to changing fortunes of war. Using the same battle plan in every game is where the real skill in wargaming lies.

[Caitsidhe]

Yeah, no skill. There is no skill in reacting to changing fortunes of war. Using the same battle plan in every game is where the real skill in wargaming lies.

<chuckles> No, there is no skill whatsoever in scoring objectives you already hold because you were lucky enough to be sitting on them or have them within a few inches of you. I don't know how many games you have played so far (I am clocking quite a few) and scoring them has not been a factor of reacting and going out to earn them.

[Lord Asterion]

<chuckles> No, there is no skill whatsoever in scoring objectives you already hold because you were lucky enough to be sitting on them or have them within a few inches of you. I don't know how many games you have played so far (I am clocking quite a few) and scoring them has not been a factor of reacting and going out to earn them.

All the games i've played (4 so far) have meant I have to pop out of cover and grab an objective quickly, at least once.

Other times I've had to move forward and grab an objective to prevent an opponent grabbing it. If you have enough units to grab all 6 objectives and sit on them with Troops so they can't be contested, then the games you're playing are probably too big.

[John Bower]

The opposite of Static is not "Random".

And while war is "pretty fluid", not to the point where you run to certain death / ignore the enemy / set yourself up to get slaughtered, for a secondary objective.

In short, "fluid" does not mean running around like a chicken with it's head cut off.

But that 'is' exactly what the guard are expected to do without question in 40k. And come to that even Eldar listen to their farseer w/out question, even when said objective seems absurd, Tau well just Tau, the 'Greater Good' and all that nonsense, Nids don't care, Chaos is chaos, definition of Chaos means random. Dark Eldar probly wouldn't give a flying 2 fingered salute for objectives in reality anyhow, and Orks... Well just point' em at the fight and forget it. And I'm sorry but WWI especially was just that, and more often than not in war generals do send troops to certain death for meaningless objectives. Like I said, war is a series of screw ups until one side makes one less screw up.