Rearguard Action - Scenario Critique

[EccentricOwl]

Hello! I do not spend a terribly large amount of my free time on game design, but I love publishing scenarios; I've written a number of RPG adventures and scattered them around the web.

I whipped, tested, edited, and then posted a little scenario, "Rearguard," which is - you guessed it - another asymmetrical holdout-in-a-small-area scenario.

Update: Revisions for N3.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B01M1 ... authuser=0

[Hero of Man]

Seems neat, though depending on terrain density it could heavily favor Chain Rifle Warbands in 2.0. Also, are you going to address Superior Infiltration, Impersonator, Mechanized, and AD troops under the same rule modification to normal Infiltration?

Also the Impetus on the Defender to sit tight and be a lot more forgiving on use of orders vs the attacker having to manage so many troops having to push inwards might be an odd skew, even with Attacker having more models/possible orders.

[EccentricOwl]

Seems neat, though depending on terrain density it could heavily favor Chain Rifle Warbands in 2.0. Also, are you going to address Superior Infiltration, Impersonator, Mechanized, and AD troops under the same rule modification to normal Infiltration?

Also the Impetus on the Defender to sit tight and be a lot more forgiving on use of orders vs the attacker having to manage so many troops having to push inwards might be an odd skew, even with Attacker having more models/possible orders.

Thanks, I appreciate the critique. I wanted to make a nice, small, somewhat flavorful scenario.

We didn't have access to loads of chain rifles, so it didn't come to mind. It's a very good point though. Perhaps I should put in a passage commenting on it?

As for the infiltration, I'm not sure how 'infiltrated' I want to allow it. Our game involved regular infiltrators only.
How common is Superior Infiltration? If it's rare and pricey enough, is it worth saying "yes, just this once, you can show up right next to the rally point' or something?

And yes, the impetus is on the defender. Here's an idea, then; the defender has to deploy several units outside the rally point as lagging troops, who now have a strong desire to get *into* the rally point and work with their countrymen.

[Hero of Man]

No problem!

I'd say always consider template weapons when you're talking about any piece of terrain models HAVE to pass through. Depending on how the rally point is designed a chain rifle/mine layer force could really hold out, or alternatively wreck shop. Also Parabolic fire would actually be useful in this mission, so that's a plus!

Superior Infiltrators aren't very common, no. What are your thoughts on Mechanized and AD3+ troops? Impersonators is a bigger fear for me, as honestly I think Hassassins and Ariadna would do REALLY well here. Hassassins have viral mines out the wazoo and Mutts, or can go three impersonators deep on you. Ariadna has camo minelayers... and other camo shenanigans.

I'm not sure on the lagging outside bit; I might have to play test this myself. BTW can you do a battle report of this? I'd like to see what kinds of lists you all used. Makes me want to turtle a Domaru Link and Karakuris with Oda. Maybe not the best list but it sounds fun.

[Mistake Not]

Question about the Attacker's splitting of forces: why?

If I have to have one group at least 50% as my only limitation I'll have one group at 100%, the other at 0%, because there's no reason to split your forces in Infinity. Every order you leave off the board is an order you can't use. So that rule either needs more restrictions or it's going to be entirely ignored, I think.

[CoveredInFish]

Nice, thanks for sharing.

One thought: since attacker and defender use different points to build army list how can you make the initiative roll before deciding sites. The lieutenant choice is part of the list building and might be influenced by available points.

Another idea. Since its About an rallying point how would it be to allow the attacker to deploy on the entire board (exceptions might be necessary like a perimeter around the rallying point) and have the defender split his army in parts, deploy one part in the rallying point and have the other groups enter from table sides. Goal is to get a number of models/points in the center and stay there for a while. Points of both sides would have to be adjusted.

Anyway I hope to get around playtesting this one

[EccentricOwl]

Nice, thanks for sharing.

One thought: since attacker and defender use different points to build army list how can you make the initiative roll before deciding sites. The lieutenant choice is part of the list building and might be influenced by available points.

Another idea. Since its About an rallying point how would it be to allow the attacker to deploy on the entire board (exceptions might be necessary like a perimeter around the rallying point) and have the defender split his army in parts, deploy one part in the rallying point and have the other groups enter from table sides. Goal is to get a number of models/points in the center and stay there for a while. Points of both sides would have to be adjusted.

Anyway I hope to get around playtesting this one

Hey, thanks again for more critique.

I didn't think about that army list thing. You're so right. What would you recommend? I'm thinking I'll just say "determine who will be attacker and defender by mutual agreement. Then, the initiative roll is only used to determine going first."

Or, truth be told, I really do like your rally point idea; I mention that in a previous post. I'm not super-sure about forcing the defender to split up their stuff since I don't know how much an effect it would be.

The idea of changing the mission from 'hold out' to 'rendezvous' is very interesting, however.

[EccentricOwl]

Made a number of updates to get this one ready for N3.

[EccentricOwl]

Made a number of updates to get this one ready for N3.

[Hero of Man]

Its apparently in violation of Google's Terms of Service, so I can't see it. Weird.

[EccentricOwl]

Double-fixed.