Mission: Safeguard v1.0.0b (Updated)

SafeguardHere’s another new mission for the portfolio of missions we use at my FLGS for 40K tournaments. As always, play testing and feedback will be required.


Primary (15pts) – Shielded Objectives. See below.

Secondary (10pts) – Have more scoring units wholly in the enemy’s deployment zone then the enemy has in yours.

Tertiary (5pts) – Kill points.

Quaternary (+1pt) – For each unit of yours below 50% starting strength (including vehicle squadrons), under half-wounds for ICs or models not part of a unit, or immobilized vehicles that aren’t part of a squadron, that are still alive at the end of the game.

Shielded Objectives
Use the capture and control rules to place objectives (rulebook pg. 91). In addition, another objective will be placed in the center of the board, the shield controller.

The objective that resides in each players’ deployment zone begins shielded. While an objective is shielded it cannot be claimed. In order to turn off the shield for your objective a unit of any type, except for vehicles, must end its movement phase within 3″ of the shield controller, center objective, and declare they are turning off the shield. Enemy units within 3″ of the shield controller have no impact on your ability to turn off the shield. Additionally, units cannot manipulate the shield controller inside a transport, they must disembark. Once this is done the shield around your objective is down and the objective can be claimed.

The shield controller does not count as an actual objective and is only used for manipulating the shields.

* All objectives are completely impassable. They cannot be moved upon by anything whatsoever, no exceptions.

* If a mission is tied or neither player achieve it, with the exception of the quaternary, then both players split the points for that mission rounding up.

Pitched Battle.

Game Length
Standard game length or time, whichever comes first.

Special Rules
Infiltrate, scout, deep strike, reserves, outflank, seize the initiative

* NOTE: If you table your opponent then you may use the remaining turns, if there are any left, to achieve the missions.

  • Amberclad

    Personally, If we’re going to be using these in a tournament, I really want to be playing a solid 6 turns. Kill points is another thing that’s bugging me. I think 700 point units should be worth 7 kill points, where that 200 or so point tac squad is only 2. Not quite victory points, but not quite as stupid as kill points. Somewhere in the middle I think.

    • The game length is standard as all the missions have been, so 5-7 turns. I can’t see getting rid of random game length for a handful of reasons. Also, changing it from 5-7 turns to 6-7 isn’t as bad as removing the random length entirely but it’s not far off either.

      I was thinking about your KP suggestion, as you’ve mentioned that before, and I could see setting up a mission using it but without testing it on a mission I wouldn’t feel confident using it across the board on all missions I have that use KP.

      The only real problem I have with your idea is it leaves a lot of wiggle room. Take Abaddon as a good example. He’s closer to 300pts than he is 200pts but would only be worth 2 KP. He’s worth the same KP as Cato or Tigurius in your system and infinitely harder to kill and thus it’s still much like the normal KP system. Don’t get me wrong, it’s better in most cases but still not perfect either.

      I suppose halves could be introduced, so 100pts is worth 1 KP and 150pts is worth 1.5. It would help more accurately value the unit without being hard to track.

      • Amberclad

        By solid 6 turns, I meant remove random game length all together. I hate winning/losing a game because it ended to soon or to late. With the KP, you would round to the tens. So guys like abbadon are worth 3. Not a perfect system i’ll admit, but I do feel it’s better than everything being equal. Like you said, we need to play test stuff like this before it goes mainstream.

        • Honestly, I’ll never remove random game length from any mission I write for 5th. Now, 6th may change something but we’ll see.

          The problem with removing random game length is, as I’ve said before, all the bullshit that 4th had. Turn #6 everything boosts/moves as fast as possible to contest every objective they can or hides every unit possible in KP missions. There’s no risk when you know when the game ends, or minimal risk anyway, and that dulls the game in my opinion.

          That being said, I’ll gladly poll the guys on the forums and see what they think. I’ll alter it if the majority would prefer set game lengths.

          • Amberclad

            Normally I would agree with you, but the missions you have been writing lately are very dynamic with multiple ways to win/score points so a simple tactic such as turn 6 turbo boosts won’t get you much. And as a player, if you set yourself up to lose a game on the final turn, well then you deserve to lose.

            • khorneinquisitor

              Impatient and press the submit button a few too many times?:P

        • Khorne Inquisitor

          While I like the idea of this, the thought of rounding makes me shiver when we start getting into upwards of 30 or 40 points. What are rhinos? They cost less than 50, then by rounding would be 0KP. If you want a system such as this, I would suggest dropping it to a KP every 50 points, that way the dude with the 150 point squad facing down a 249 point squad doesn’t feel disgruntled. In a 100 point rounding system, there is a difference of 99 points and they are both 2 KP. In a 50 point system, the 150 is worth 3 while the other is worth 5. Still easy as hell to manage, but a little more discriminating.

      • therhino

        DISQUS is being a bitch and won’t let me add a new comment, so I’ll just reply…
        The turning on and off of objectives as claimable makes me nervous. If the game starts to go south for me, I just boost up some bikers or leap in with jump infantry and shut the objectives back off. Auto-tie on primary objective, 8 points for me!
        The turning on of objectives is fine, but the turning off just doesnt’ sit right.

        • That was something I wasn’t 100% sure on so feedback is good.

          • therhino

            It really only becomes problematic in the later game. As said, if I’m getting stomped on objectives (orlose all my Troops), I just head to the center and shut off the objectives altogether. The opponent can’t possibly turn them back on in anything less than two full turns. I’m in the way in his first movement phase, and he’ll have to kill me off in his shooting or assault, and ensure I don’t move another unit in MY turn to 3″ of the controller. If he succeeds, he can shut it off in that second turn. If he fails, he has to wait another full turn.
            Of course, without the ability to turn the objectives off, there’s no reason to turn them on. Since it’s the primary goal of the scenario, why would you NOT want them turned on?

  • hippie

    How about if you have to drop the shield on your own objective and don’t need to have no enemies within 3″? This forces both players to unlock instead of the gun line waiting for the opponent to walk up and get shot. I agree with Rhino on the turning off bit.

    • Your double negative is confusing me. So, each player needs to get to the controller to drop their own shield and enemies within 3″ of it doesn’t matter?

      If so that seems fair to me.

      • hippie

        No, that’s not what I was trying not to say. Exactly!

        • khorneinquisitor

          It’s like math! Cancel out the “not” and it makes complete sense! Sort of like 1-(-1)=1+1

  • Pingback: The Red Tide Strikes against the Disciples of Twilight « High Die 40K: battle reports, stories, WIPs()

%d bloggers like this: