Monday, 10 April 2017

New Mission: Civilian Extraction

Other games may have distracted us from our blogging efforts for a while (although in the most golden of ironies not Ed), but I can report that we are trundling along in the background and still getting ready for Critical Engagement in July. One of my favourite parts of Critty E (as the event is broadly known on the streets, just ask your local rude boy for confirmation) is the freedom we have on rule and mission creation. After all, it's our tournament, and we'll do whatever we ruddy well like!

With that in mind, I have created the following mission, Civilian Extraction, which features a brand new rule and objective type to fight over; Survivor Markers and Survivor Objectives!

If we're getting all fluffy and thematic, the mission is based on two opposition forces locating a large group of survivors and sending a task force out to 'secure' them. The nature of these survivors is flexible if you are story-building, and could range anywhere from an 'unaligned' Resistance clan, to the survivors of a cluster of crashed drop pods from an above orbital battle, or a group of civilians who have escaped the Scourge 'home brew' farms and are hiding from the alien menace. The possibilities aren't quite endless, but are as deep as an Olympic diving pool. Every race has reason to collect survivors too; UCM and Resistance need more boys n' girls for the meat grinder, Scourge need fresh hosts for the same grinder of meat, PHR want to show off all their shiny baubles and funky iProds and the Shaltari want to get all probe happy.

Mechanically, Survivor Markers and Survivor Objectives (SO) will allow for a continuous game of back and forth between forces, rather than the grab n' go tactic normally employed with objectives. Commanders will have the gamble of sitting in a building as the Occupier and 'gathering' multiple SO's to try and orchestrate a grand escape with a bunch of them, but also run the risk of being destroyed whilst holding them and suffering minus points! Players are also encouraged to take larger squads of troops to help find the objectives (more Infantry = more people searching), but will not be able to search with some of the big, ugly CQB units (those with Reckless Abandon and Bloodthirsty). The Critical Location will also allow for flexibility in the case that you are not the occupier in either building

This is very Alpha still and I am open to tweaking, and feedback based on peoples games and thoughts would be very useful! Point of note, this mission is currently written for a 1k points, Clash sized game, due to our restrictions at Critical Engagement. If you want to play with 1500 points you could add a third Survivor Marker and make them diagonal across the board, or perhaps a second Critical Location about 8" away from other (centre to centre).

You can see mission details and download the document through the link below;


  1. Very interesting. I think that it makes for a very intense and dynamic game. But...

    A player should not want to stand in the building and tanking points. If you find it one turn and escape the next it is worth 3 points. That is well enough and many times staying inside a building longer is a problem anyway so it becomes a little awkward with a -1 to be in a building and loose the marker. Do you see what I'm getting at?

    I think instead you should remove the possibility to remove the marker from the table and instead allow the one last getting a point from it carry it like a objective. If it is in a building with it's occupying carrier the occupier may try to get a point again. But you can't get info in transports. You must be in a building. So players will want to get into the building find the survivor and then move it between buildings. Otherwise I think you end up with a find an objective and get it off for three points situation again.

    And make all buildings armoured.

    I like the general idea. Infantry are important and people with more bases are in advantage as it should be. But right now I think the best choice is to find the marker and get off the table and (I think) it is not what you have intended.

    Both this idea and the one with searching buildings with 4+ per base and a large building needing 5 successes are good ideas and makes for variation.

    Good read. thanks. /Egge

    1. Thanks for the feedback chap. My idea was really to make people think differently about objectives. If you grab and run you potentially leave it open to your opponents grabbing an SO, which means committing units to a building for the entire game. I'm confident that more buildings will be neccesary for 1500pts. Also the buildings are hardened and 40DP, and SIs only give you 2 VPs

    2. Aha - somehow I got confused and thought you "tank" points each time you search successfully. So it means a building holds many SM... Yeah - it makes more sense and should do what you aim for. I also missed it was 40dp buildings.

      For a 1500point game I also think it would be good with another building but another critical location is a bit much. 4 "high scorer" seems better balanced. But then again the possible variations are endless. Why not mix these SM and normal objectives? OR with focal points. If the basic principle of SM are sound and the test in a tournament goes ok that mans you ad a lot of variations just to the normal games by adding a SM here and there.


    3. Yep, Targets of Opportunity would be very interesting withan SM in each of the central side buildings.

  2. Does Blood thirsty and reckless abandon effect any other race apart from Scourge?
    Was that a fluff decision or a game mechanics/ balance decision?

    1. Beserkers have Reckless Abandon, it also helps future proof things if the rules play well.

      It was more thematically, as I can't imagine a Razorworm having a Skippy moment and leading a bunch civilians out of a burning building, but it also poses interesting tactical questions to Scourge and Resistance players. Load up on the mega CQB units to dominate and deny the SM buildings, or try and find more SO's than your opponents.

  3. I really like the idea, but I think there is a risk it will turn in to a demo-fest that ends with a CL parking lot. Maybe more high-DP SM buildings should be involved? Or, A9+ low-DP? Then again, 80DP at A8 is a good bit of damage, even for two 1000 point armies.

    What I like most about this mission is that the ability to search degrades as you lose bases of infantry. That is brilliant!

    Can Mercury Drones help in the searching?

    1. Demo is a valid concern and one that has crossed my mind. It should definitely remain an option, but is hard to prevent unless we start introducing more SM buildings, a new type of building where only Demolition weapons can 'double-out' (which is certainly an option, as after all if I'm a survivor I'm probably hiding in the toughest building going), or by just sticking the SMs on bunkers. At 1000 points we shouldn't have too many issues, hopefully, and the mission can be reviewed for 1500pts afterwards.

      A Mercury squad may chose a Survivor Marker building within their activation, and all friendly Occupier squads may add a +1 modifier to their search rolls for Survivor Objectives for the rest of the turn. This affect ends in the turns Round Up phase.

      I'm glad you like it!

  4. Yeah, this sounds interesting. Will be interested to know the 1,500 point variant(s). If you have three SM buildings along a diagonal, do you also use corner deployment zones? Where do you put the CL in that case?...

    On the one hand it kinda screws PHR, since none of their Infantry are more than 2 bases, but on the other hand you've mitigated that somewhat with the appended Mercury Drone ruling, which is nice, fluffy, and encourages bring Drones, something I haven't done since the Valks turned up (used to never leave base without them)...

    Looking forward to more missions (and their 1,500 point variants)!