20 x 20 Infinity Mission System Feedback Thread

[Scorch]

This thread is meant to compile the 20 x 20 Mission System Feedback, found here!

Update from Prophet of Doom:
Thanks to people giving me feedback, I got rid of some minor mistakes.
I will keep on updating this document as people point out mistakes to me. However, I will not change rules to avoid confusion.

So if you have downloaded this document before and spotted some mistakes, they should be gone if you download again.

If you spot some other mistake or have some comments about the missions, I am very happy to receive feedback and constructive criticism.

[el_presidente]

Awesome! Thanks for putting this together.

I've just started reading through it, and it looks very interesting.

Question: On page 4 it states that "Active: Active means a model is not in a normal state and thus able to act."
Maybe it's meant to be null?

[Neillmcm]

Looks great, looking forward to trying it, thanks!

[Vertrucio]

Will try it out tonight. However, offhand I'm really not sure about Supply 1's requirement to have a model in btb with the crates. Even if it's a 24" bubble around the center point, people will naturally put the crates closer together, which means people will just get into clustered shootouts anyway.

[Prophet_of_Doom]

@Vetrucio: it is actually a 20 inch bubble, because it is within 10 inches of the crates. The crates need to be 4 inches apart from each other.

We played this mission a couple of times because it is so easy to explain. No player attempted to put them all close together. Remember, what is an advantage for you, is also an advantage for your opponent in this setting!

[Prophet_of_Doom]

@el-presidente:

this is a very embarrassing typo on my part. I dont know how that happened. Cross out the "not" and everything is fine. Sorry.

[Prophet_of_Doom]

Ok, there is a bit of an errata here:

1. To make clearer what I thought would be clear enough: If it says a trooper needs to be in base to base contact in order to claim an objective of any description, a hacker cannot use a repeater. They must be in base to base with the objective, too.

Investigate Artifacts: I forgot to write that troopers need to be in base to base contact in order to investigate the artifact.

In some secondary missions, I wrote single action. I meant short skill.

[Prophet_of_Doom]

Thanks to people giving me feedback, I got rid of some minor mistakes.
I will keep on updating this document as people point out mistakes to me. However, I will not change rules to avoid confusion.

So if you have downloaded this document before and spotted some mistakes, they should be gone if you download again.

If you spot some other mistake or have some comments about the missions, I am very happy to receive feedback and constructive criticism.

[banux]

Hi

Great idea, i love the more fluff missions that yams.
We discuss it with a friend and we have a question.

What happen if one player is in retreat and leave the table before the turn limit ?

It is like some ITS mission and the game finish at the end of his turn ?
Or The opponent can finish the renaming turn ?

Thanks

[Prophet_of_Doom]

@banux:

The game ends just as specified in the basic rule book. 20x020 follows this as well as 20x20. I try to keep my missions as close to the normal rules as I can.

Yes, this means that you can end the game early by evacuating your troops just as specified on p. 143 of the rulebook. I guess in most cases that means that you still lose the game. This ruling drives players to claim some objectives before the opponents claim theirs and then fall back into retreat, I guess. I understand that this can lead to some absurd situation, but that should be rare. I that occurs, you can always claim the moral victory.

[banux]

@ Prophet_of_Doom:

Thanks for the answer. We had the situation in an YAMS game with a player with no figurines remaining but with the same victory point.

[Prophet_of_Doom]

I realized that this is actually an interesting tactical option. If you get wiped out, maybe you are able to end the game early. To avoid this situation, your opponent has to claim objectives. Think of it a bit like trying to get a stalemate when you are on the losing side of a chess game.

[Prophet_of_Doom]

Ok, some more feedback:

Red09 Triangulation (6) – this needs clarification – does each opponent have 5 markers (this makes sense to me) or are there 5 in total (you could effectively deny your opponent 4 points straight up by marking your deployment zone even before they can get there).

The markers only serve as a reminder that VP have been generated. So every player would have 5 markers. I believe this to be clear. If the rule was that only 5 markers exist for both players, I would have written about it.


Red09 February 22, 2015 at 1:44 pm

Mission 9 – modifiers stack (thus -3 plus +3 =0) – you can avoid this if you use the word ‘instead’ as you did in mission 17. Likewise in mission 15 and 20. Can a player retry if intercepted? (Obviously successful otherwise data couldn’t be intercepted).

You may be right and I added the word "instead "in mission 9 , 15 and 20 to be super clear. I thought it would be clear enough, though.
Thank you very much, it is important to me that there can be no different interpretation to the mission instructions. This is often a bit difficult, not just because English is my second language. It is also because when writing, one understands it and fails to see other ways of interpretation.



Mission 10 – seems it would better to have the warcor dead than alive at the end. More points that way.

No, because you do not get extra points for the warcor being dead. 2 points would be the maximum you could get if your warcor does not survive. The idea is that you get the highest applicable VP from the list. There is a + on the missions were you can get extra points. Remember that 6 is the maximum VP you can get. You do get more VP for having moved the warcor but him being dead rather than having him alive but never moved. This has been the result of playtesting. In earlier stages, there was no VP possible if the warcor was dead at the end of the game. That has proven to be too difficult.

I changed the order of the VP awards a bit to make this clearer.



Mission 12 – clear language needed for awarding first +1 VP.

Lets look at this alternative wording:

+1 VP for having occupied a building/structure that is partially or completely inside the opponents’ deployment zone. If no such building/structure exists, count the building closest to the enemy deployment zone as a building fulfils this criteria for purposes of generating this VP.

Is this clearer? Not sure.

Mission drop ship – (assumed only one dropship?)

I believe my text makes it perfectly clear that it is only one drop ship.


– says to have 1 pointing towards table edge of choice – whose choice?.

It does not matter, because the dispersion template is even.


Also could suggest a countdown turn rather than immediate launch as will turn into an auto 2VP who ever gets in first and launches. This could allow you to put multiple models inside (become non combative (as they strap in)) at the disadvantage of having less models outside to fight.

This mission has been changed countless times, including a version with a countdown turn and non combative dropship passengers. Both the countdown and the strap in create other problems. It is pretty hard to get the dropship ready for flight and get fighters inside. The inside fighters cannot see much because they are inside the dropship.

I thought exactly about the situation you have in mind when I altered that mission. Ok, Lets assume that an engineer fixes the dropship, gets inside and launches it all in one turn. (Pretty difficult, but possible.) Then the player would get 3 points. 1 for having an escaping model 2 for having launched the dropship. The opponent player would get 1 VP because only one enemy model has escaped. The opponent can still get a draw by being the only player to fulfill the secondary mission. Sounds fair to me.


Mission 15 – what if one OM lands on another OM? Maybe reroll? Or put to side?

Just look up what happens if a model would land on another model when using combat jump. I think this is pretty unlikely to happen anyway.


Mission 19 – can a scientist as a member of your team heal/CASEVAC another scientist using his irregular order?

He can CASEVAC, but not heal. The scientist does not have the doctor or paramedic skill.


Again, thank you very much for your feedback. It is very hard to guess all the possible interpretations a reader may have. I also shy away from long, convoluted instructions to too make everything super clear as the result would probably be the opposite. I try to use short and clear sentences.

[Stiopa]

Minor spelling error in Mission 8 - Breakthrough:

Troops who deployed via AD: Combat Jump and scattered off the far edge of the enemy deployment zone do not count has having broken through.

That should be "as", I believe

A few minor changes I could think about: Placing the number before the mission name ("8 - Breakthrough" instead of "Breakthrough 8", unless that was intentional? I'd also add a paragraph about total required number of crates/antennas/OM's into the Rules section and version number on title page for quick version check.

All in all I find the whole system very interesting, can't wait to playtest it. Great work, thanks!

[Prophet_of_Doom]

Minor spelling error in Mission 8 - Breakthrough:

Troops who deployed via AD: Combat Jump and scattered off the far edge of the enemy deployment zone do not count has having broken through.

That should be "as", I believe

I will correct that.

A few minor changes I could think about: Placing the number before the mission name ("8 - Breakthrough" instead of "Breakthrough 8", unless that was intentional?

That went a bid back and forth as I was writing, I ended up liking it better that way. I don think it matters.


I'd also add a paragraph about total required number of crates/antennas/OM's into the Rules section and version number on title page for quick version check.

the paragraph on the total of required material is in the mission table on page 6. That has been very important for me. The idea is that people who do not have all the stuff they need for the mission can see that at a glance and decide to choose another mission. The reason this is not found in the missions themselves is that there is a strict self-imposed rule about one mission has to fit on one page.

A version number does make sense. At the moment, I am changing stuff as I get feedback. Hmmmm..... I will do this. Now. From now on, if you download, you will get V1.2 and counting. Thanks for the suggestion.

All in all I find the whole system very interesting, can't wait to playtest it. Great work, thanks!

[Calmdown]

I haven't read it in detail, but this is going to be what I use from now on. So I have no specific comments but rather some general ones.

ITS is awful. Just awful. Take the best game on the market, and ruin it with the worst scenario systems seen in years. Wow.

I love YAMS, but it still suffers from some issues in not being balanced enough, issues with specialists, etc.

I think CB are going down the right route with the missions in the new book, but they're still hung up on specialists too much and also far too random in their mission difficulty, and the secure HVT thing hasn't even been thought about past someone writing it down.

What we need are scenarios. Good ones. 20x20 provides that.


I'll give some actual feedback once I get playing!

[Prophet_of_Doom]

thanks a lot, Calmdown. I hope you will like my missions.

Yesterday, I played Launching Sequence and the players on the other table were playing Save the Scientists. It all worked out very well. However, I made the observation that people are quite happy not to use the secondary mission. This is good evidence that I am spot on with the notion that simple missions are required for pick up games. Also for tournaments, I believe. I do not want to read a complicated mission description in the few minutes that I have in between the games.

However, in some 20x20 scenarios the secondary mission is actually important as a means of giving the losing player a chance for a draw. I gave the Victory points quite a bit of thought. The secondary missions are mostly not complicated, but I am often quite happy to play without it. In pick up games, the absolute balance often does not matter that much as convenience, real life requirements and random oversights play a role. E.g. yesterday I forgot that I had a second chasseur in my list. I won nevertheless because we stopped after Duroc activated the last console.

The game yesterday demonstrated that using specialists does make some sense in 20x20. My opponent failed to use his fusilier hacker who would have had a 75% chance to activate consoles and used a lot of orders because he constantly failed to get the 45% chance he had with his regular guy.

[Cosworth]

Thanks for creating this. Knowing that any list is viable in this system makes it very newbie friendly.
I'm a little concerned with the low specialist requirements or just advantages as it promotes hard hitting lists over finesse lists, but haven't tested enough to see if this is the case.

[Prophet_of_Doom]

I admit that specialists are something that players are unlikely to bring to a 20 x 20 game just because they have a 30% higher chance of claiming objectives. Some people prefer it that way.

The intention of 20x20 is that it can be used in games people play on the spot withput preparation. I also wanted to show what tournament missions should be like witj category a and b scenarios.

However, I do see the point of having to use specialists. Now I am considering an option for version 2 that enforces the use of specialists. dont know yet how that should work out for comfortable list building.

[Zen79]

If ITS 2015 is anything like the 2014 vetsion, it will be specialist heavy again. Keeping specialists optional in 20x20 would distinguish it better from ITS, IMHO.
I like the 20x20 approach of giving specialists advantages without requiring them.
And I think that the usefulness of specialists 'on their own' has increased somewhat with N3, especially FOs (burst 2, cheaper guided missile bots) and hackers (much more useful things to do not depending on the opponent's list).

[Prophet_of_Doom]

I agree with you, Zen. I am gathering ideas and feedback for a version 2.0. I am still happy with the system as it is, but I have not yet seen big incentive to use the specialists. I agree that there is definitely more reason now to bring along a hacker and an FO for their own merits, but not so much for engineers. If I ever change to obligatory specialists, it will only be as optional for people who prefer to play that way.

[Zen79]

Yes engineers could be better.

If you have a TAG or TR Remote, it can be worth it to have an Engineer nearby, especially with a helperbot.

I was very happy because destructible terrain is now the default, but walls are as sturdy as TAGs and 1 DCharge will often not breach them. Engineers could have been interesting if they could reliably make shortcuts with 1-2 Orders, but like it stands... rather not.

[Prophet_of_Doom]

I agree. A d-charge should do it, that would make engineers a bit more interesting. Doctors are similar.

[Cosworth]

Played #13 Teseum run with #2 secondary.

Wording of #2 secondary is almost unreadable. We ended up interpreting it as meaning "if you have 10% more army points not in a null state on the table than your opponent...." etc.

For the main mission is the Teseum shard marker considered in the deployement zone if carrier ends his move in the deployement zone in a null state?

[Prophet_of_Doom]

yes, the tesseum would be safe. Pretty dramatic scene, I have to say.

I will have to look at the secondary mission later. It is pretty hard to get the wording exact and not leaving room for interpretation.
Your interpretation of the mission was completely correct, so I could not have written it that badly.

[Cosworth]

Thanks. Forgot one thing: Thanks for creating this.

[Prophet_of_Doom]

I thank you Cosworth for helping me get rid of this convoluted sentence I was never really happy with. Now in v1.3 we have 2 simple sentences.

[el_presidente]

We have now played some of the A scenarios and here are some comments:

1. Access supplies: Nice scenario overall, we haven't used the benefits from the supplies yet, but it's fun and dynamic.

2. Destroy Beacon: This one we didn't like, It's very hard to get that objective and people just turtle up in their own DP...on the other hand a Speculo killer can win the scenario on it's own.

Maybe having the objectives outside your deployment zone could be better? or disallowing enemy troops from deploying within 8" of the beacon? I don't know...

3. Quadrant control, rivers of blood and secure buildings are simple and functional, I like them when you combine them with secondary objectives, it makes for good quick pickup games.

4. Upload evidence: very nice! We also tried a variant with two transmitters instead of just one.

Nice job with these, I like the system very much!

[Prophet_of_Doom]

Thanks for the compliment, El Presidente! I enjoy getting feedback on scenarios.

Destroy Beacon: I think you have got a very valid point there. I will include the thought for version 2.0. I didnt come across speculo killers during playtesting, so I have to confess this problem did not occur to me. the idea of the scenario is that players use some of their force to defend their beacon and another to destroy the enemy one. The beacon is deliberately tough to destroy so that you'd want to use d-charges or special ccw for this task. Originally, I considered only allowing d-charges, but then I realised that many factions have hardly any profiles with them.

Upload evidence: I have strong evidence to believe that in the second edition of 20x20 there will be 2 transmitters.

You are spot on about the scenarios you mentioned needing the secondary objectives. Victory points wise, the secondary objective is a way to be able to draw once a player has lost on the main objective. My concern at the moment is that I get the idea that for many players, the secondary objective is already too much to think about. Well, most of them a very simple, I feel. Should I simplify this even more?

[el_presidente]

We haven't had any problem with the secondaries being "too much to remember" and we're a very new group still coping with remembering the basic rules As I mentioned before we're just using the objectives in the A category (brilliant idea by the way), to keep things simple and it's worked great.