Extensive change or simple improvement?
My current plan at the moment is to simply improve our goals for the 2011 GT. Currently, I'm planning on the following goals "for sure"
1) Fixed 5 Objectives (same as 2010)
- This slightly favors MSU or high quantity scoring unit armies, just as the natural book mission does. Fixing the objectives in place prevents too many advantages for whoever places 3 instead of 2, and places first. You could "remove" the center objective, but I think that punishes slower armies too much; you need to fix the # of objectives b/c you need the mission to be uniform across tables.
- This slightly favors deathstar or higher value unit armies, and is slightly unfavorable to MSU ... the difference is marginal, but real; you play this mission best if you can live and breathe at midfield; despite the casual observer's opinion, analysis and playtest shows it plays DRAMATICALLY different from Fixed 5 Objectives, primarily because you want to be able to shuffle units to any quarter, and combat at the center of the board ... whereas in Fixed 5, you need scoring units in the center of each quarter to capture any of the objectives, AND the center
3) Some Version of Kill Points - Currently planning "Win By 3"
- Win by 4 was a little bit TOO easy to draw, win by 2 was too similar to base, which is too difficult to actually plan and execute a tie on to fit into the mission approach of the NOVA Format -- an approach that focuses on tieable missions to enable unfavorable match-ups on primary to be force tied for a better win on 2ndary or 3rd. This has been explained in other articles here in more depth. Nominate 5 KP is not a mission we will do - in addition to being relatively panned at the BFS by a number of attendees, it's entirely too easy to game as a "game" of its own, outside of 40k ... and it is too favorable to MSU; which is exactly what the lovers of KP don't want to happen as a result of tampering with or removing the KP mission. % KP is another option, though - but that in and of itself may favor MSU as well; hard to say. Worth discussion and input here.
So that's where I'm at right now with development. The question then becomes - what would you add, what would you do differently, and should there be more than 3 rotating goals? IF so, what should the other goals be? It's important to remember - the goal must be both tie-able, and not a major favor to any style or codex of army.
I.E. if you had a mission that involved having a unit at the very edge corner of each corner of the game board, that would far too strongly favor armies that can easily do that, like DE/Eldar/Etc. Thought process and critical analysis please!