prophetofDoom

20x20 Version 4 Thoughts

16 posts in this topic

I have just started to play ITS Version 9 and I can say that I really like it. The system emphasises the need to bring certain troopers to certain missions. There are so many specifics that need to be met: You need a sturdy datatracker, a sufficient amount of specialists, a TAG, troopers with antimateriel ammo. I have not been to an ITS9 tournament yet, but I can imagine that it will be tough to write lists.

Yes, the complexity of some ITS missions has increased, and it is certainly not a good idea to read the mission description 3 minutes before you start a game. The background stories of Infinity still do not come to life very much in the ITS scenarios. But on the whole, ITS 9 is good.

So is there still need for a system like 20x20? I seriously asked myself the question and I have come to the conclusion that the answer is yes, but only if it does something different to ITS. So what could 20x20 possibly do that ITS does not?

ITS requires players to bring specifically tailored lists, which I like. Still, I believe this is the part where 20x20 can be different. 20x20 should be a system that can be played in a more casual manner, with lists that have undergone less scrutiny when being made. I still like the idea of encouraging people to play with different lists, but my approach to do this should differ from ITS. Where ITS works with exclusiveness (a trooper can only achieve something if it has certain specifics) 20x20 should work on the principle of giving advantages to certain troopers. Every trooper can do mission-specific tasks, but certain troopers can do it better. 

Of course, 20x20 should also be a system that reflects the background a bit more than ITS. And yes, I believe that it is easier to read and understand a 20x20 mission than an ITS mission. I will work on improving that aspect, if possible. 

What do you think? Is 20x20 obsolete? How can it be different from ITS in a positive way? What should be changed about 20x20? 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like 20x20 very much in its current state. I usually play it when I have 200 point lists and with no tags. Maybe that’s what is missing but I’m not sure if I want tags in 200 point games.

I like how everyone can complete objectives. It feels more natural even if it’s not as balanced or competitive as ITS but list building is also more relaxed and fluffy. It’s also more straightforward since there are no secret objectives unlike say YAMS, which acts closer to older ITS missions.

Truth is I would like a revised version of 20x20 even though I don’t know what should be added. Maybe some missions need to change and/or be balanced but as a whole I think it the system is complete.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Belgrim said:

 

Truth is I would like a revised version of 20x20 even though I don’t know what should be added. Maybe some missions need to change and/or be balanced but as a whole I think it the system is complete.

Thanks for the feedback. What missions would need a better balancing? 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, prophetofDoom said:

Thanks for the feedback. What missions would need a better balancing? 

 

Give me a couple of days to play a couple of games (cause i have been too busy to play lately) and i will return with an answer.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Belgrim said:

Give me a couple of days to play a couple of games (cause i have been too busy to play lately) and i will return with an answer.

that would be awesome!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to clarify that I am just an intermediate player at best and that these suggestions are based on my local meta. @prophetofDoom

Mild suggestions are in GREEN - Strong suggestions are in RED

1. Border Clash (p.8): "1 OP for the player whose total is lower than that of the opponent, but has at least one active trooper in the
opponent’s table half"
change into 2 OP

2. Collect Debris (p.10):

  • 5 OP for having collected 7 or more debris markers.
  • 4 OP for having collected 6 debris markers.
  • 3 OP for having collected 4 or 5 debris markers.
  • 2 OP for having collected 2 or 3 debris markers.
  • 1 OP for having collected 1 debris marker.

change into:

  • 5 OP for having collected 7 or more debris markers.
  • 4 OP for having collected 5 or 6 debris markers.
  • 3 OP for having collected 3 or 4 debris markers.
  • 2 OP for having collected 1 or 2 debris markers.

3. Secure Building/Centre (p.12):

  • "6 OP for the player who has active troopers inside the target zone and no enemy troopers are inside it."  change into: 5 OP
  • "+1 OP for the player who has his/her trooper with the Lieutenant skill active and inside the target zone."  change into: +2 OP
  • "4 OP for the player whose total points worth of active troopers inside the target zone is at least 5 army list
    points higher than the opponent’s total points worth of active troopers inside the target zone." 
    change into: more than
  • "2 OP for the player who has active troopers inside the target zone, but their army list points cost is 5 or more
    below those of the opponent
    ." 
    change into: are less than 5 than those of the opponent
  • "+1 OP for the player who has his/her trooper with the Lieutenant skill active and inside the target zone."  change into: +2 OP

Also the army point differences in these Victory Conditions are too small I think. Probably it should be closer to 10 point differences for them to count.

4. Triangulation (p.13):

Exclusion zone seems to me a bit restricting. Something like this would make more sense: Units that choose to deploy with a beacon cannot make use of HD, IMP, AD ..etc as the beacon hampers their ability to do so.

Overall it's a fun but weird mode than needs more playtesting at least on my part.

5. Data Recovery (p.16):

Intercepting Data Recovery is a game breaking mechanic that encourages spam of hackers and repeaters.

  • "1 OP for a player who has downloaded less data packs than the opponent, but at least 1."  change into: 2 OP

6. Intercept Enemy Communication (p.17):

Complete Rework or Removal: I dislike this mode very much and I avoid playing it.

7. Teseum Run (p.21):

  • "Gathering Teseum: In order to get a shard of teseum, a trooper must be in base contact with an objective
    marker and spend a short skill, passing a WIP-3 roll. Specialist operatives and Engineers have to pass a
    WIP+3 roll instead. Failed attempts may be repeated by spending more short skills." 
    change into: WIP+0 roll

8. Escape with Dropship (p.22):

Victory Conditions are somewhat strange and need clarification. To be honest i never played this mode because i could not figure out how exactly points are scored and the rules are somewhat hard to understand. This is probably just me.

9. Escort Warcor (p.23):

This needs a huge rework, probably instead of killing the enemy warcor we should only be able to immobilize and stun or move into BtB and capture him or even instead of a Warcor it could be a spy starting in IMP and we must find who he is and discover/incapacitate him.

10. Seize Hardware (p.26):

  • Interrogating Civilians: Add special operative to the list
  • Civilians may still be interrogated after the crates (OMs) have been opened as they also reveal other useful information: I think this is useless.

11. Wetwork (p.27):

A little bit strange: Maybe change how civilians come into play and/or victory conditions.

 

I find that secondary objectives need no changes.

Hope this helped :)

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sure,this helped. I will go through all your recommendations. 

For now: Collect Debris, Teseum Run and Recover Remotes will not be in Version 4. 

I love the Intercept Communication scenario. A twist on the usual. 

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 26/10/2017 at 7:03 AM, Belgrim said:

 

Hope this helped :)

 

Quote

 

Quote

 

First off, thank you very much for the work you have put into giving me this feedback. I have copied and pasted your suggestions into a word document and will keep them in mind as I rework 20x20.

Mild suggestions are in GREEN - Strong suggestions are in RED

1. Border Clash (p.8): "1 OP for the player whose total is lower than that of the opponent, but has at least one active trooper in the
opponent’s table half"
 change into 
2 OP

3. Secure Building/Centre (p.12):

  • "6 OP for the player who has active troopers inside the target zone and no enemy troopers are inside it."  change into: 5 OP

  • "+1 OP for the player who has his/her trooper with the Lieutenant skill active and inside the target zone."  change into: +2 OP

  • "4 OP for the player whose total points worth of active troopers inside the target zone is at least 5 army list
    points 
    higher than the opponent’s total points worth of active troopers inside the target zone."  change into: more than

  • "2 OP for the player who has active troopers inside the target zone, but their army list points cost is 5 or more
    below those of the opponent
    ." 
     change into: are less than 5 than those of the opponent

  • "+1 OP for the player who has his/her trooper with the Lieutenant skill active and inside the target zone."  change into: +2 OP

Also the army point differences in these Victory Conditions are too small I think. Probably it should be closer to 10 point differences for them to count.

Figuring out the OP system is a very complex task. I have to weigh in the secondary missions as well, for example. Both of those missions already have their OP system reworked, but not the way you suggested. I will give it a third thought. The way the night aspect works in Border Clash has been changed as well.

 

4. Triangulation (p.13):

Exclusion zone seems to me a bit restricting. Something like this would make more sense: Units that choose to deploy with a beacon cannot make use of HD, IMP, AD ..etc as the beacon hampers their ability to do so.

I disagree here. I think the way Exclusion Zone works in ITS is much more frustrating. In Triangulation, you get to move your infiltrators up to the table half without having to rely on luck. More would be detrimental to the mission. The change you suggest would hamper the use of such troopers, leading to frustration which is at least equal to what my exclusion zone does. No exclusion zone would make the mission too easy. I have played this mission often enough (or have it seen played) to know that it works quite well.

 

5. Data Recovery (p.16):

Intercepting Data Recovery is a game breaking mechanic that encourages spam of hackers and repeaters.

I understand your concern and have seen the strength of hackers in this mission. I do not want to remove this mechanic because it would make the mission bland. I want people to use hackers and repeaters. I would be very hard to spam them. I have changed the WIP modifiers to make it easier for non-hackers to download data packs when a hacker Is intercepting.

  • "1 OP for a player who has downloaded less data packs than the opponent, but at least 1."  change into: 2 OP

I have considered exactly this before, have dropped it and now I have put it in again. As I said, OP are hard to calculate.

6. Intercept Enemy Communication (p.17):

Complete Rework or Removal: I dislike this mode very much and I avoid playing it.

Sorry, I love this one and it will pretty much stay as it is.

 

8. Escape with Dropship (p.22):

Victory Conditions are somewhat strange and need clarification. To be honest i never played this mode because i could not figure out how exactly points are scored and the rules are somewhat hard to understand. This is probably just me.

I know that others have played and understood it. Wording is hard for me as a non-native speaker. What do you find confusing?

9. Escort Warcor (p.23):

This needs a huge rework, probably instead of killing the enemy warcor we should only be able to immobilize and stun or move into BtB and capture him or even instead of a Warcor it could be a spy starting in IMP and we must find who he is and discover/incapacitate him.

Interesting idea with the immobilization and stunning. This may be more acceptable now that ITS has done something similar. I will consider it. The mission works as it is if people understand that they need to protect their warcor.

10. Seize Hardware (p.26):

  • Interrogating CiviliansAdd special operative to the list

  • Civilians may still be interrogated after the crates (OMs) have been opened as they also reveal other useful information: I think this is useless.

Sorry, but I will not follow you on this one at all. I want LTs to be more active and not allowing scoring OP for interrogation after opening crates would be unfair.

11. Wetwork (p.27):

A little bit strange: Maybe change how civilians come into play and/or victory conditions.

I am ok with 20x20 being a bit strange at some points. It was hard to figure out how the civilians should get on the board. One of the points behind this mission is that the deployment zones should be where the main part of the game takes place for a change. I don’t see a problem with the victory conditions either.

 

I find that secondary objectives need no changes.

Some will be changed.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have currently no time to dig deep intot your system and give any usefull feedback, but I wanted to let you know, that your 20x20 system was much loved by me and my opponents. We have actually based most of our campaign on that missions. Sadly Photobucket has shredded the post into unrecognisable pieces, but if you are interested, check this out:

So, pleeeease, pretty please with a cherry on top, keep on doing this!

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 13.10.2017 at 6:51 AM, prophetofDoom said:

What do you think? Is 20x20 obsolete? How can it be different from ITS in a positive way? What should be changed about 20x20? 

IMO 20x20 (currently using 3.0) isn't obsolete at all. I can't really compare it to the ITS Season 9, since... 20x20 is the sole mission system we use in my local meta (one of the players intends to make us give the ITS a try, but given how irregular our games have become, it might take a while. Quite a while!).

I really like the fact 20x20 can be used for random, pickup games - I don't have to build a mission-specific list as I would for ITS. I don't have to know the mission in advance, I can roll it on the spot. 

As for changes - I believe that Objectives should have a determined size. Assigning them a Slihouette value wouldn't be a bad idea, actually. I recall i was talking to you on that idea when 3.0 was originally released :)

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Errhile said:

IMO 20x20 (currently using 3.0) isn't obsolete at all. I can't really compare it to the ITS Season 9, since... 20x20 is the sole mission system we use in my local meta (one of the players intends to make us give the ITS a try, but given how irregular our games have become, it might take a while. Quite a while!).

I really like the fact 20x20 can be used for random, pickup games - I don't have to build a mission-specific list as I would for ITS. I don't have to know the mission in advance, I can roll it on the spot. 

As for changes - I believe that Objectives should have a determined size. Assigning them a Slihouette value wouldn't be a bad idea, actually. I recall i was talking to you on that idea when 3.0 was originally released :)

yeah, and we came to an agreement. In the new version, there will be clearer mention of the size of the objectives because they vary. 

I intent to make 20x20 even more for pick up games because I feel ITS is becoming less for pick up games. I still want to keep the level C missions for the more narrative games. I do like the army list preparation aspect of Infinity, but I think it can be a bit too much of a burden sometimes. 

I am about to finish the draft soon. Would you like to proofread? Your help will be very much appreciated. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, prophetofDoom said:

yeah, and we came to an agreement. In the new version, there will be clearer mention of the size of the objectives because they vary. 

I intent to make 20x20 even more for pick up games because I feel ITS is becoming less for pick up games. I still want to keep the level C missions for the more narrative games. I do like the army list preparation aspect of Infinity, but I think it can be a bit too much of a burden sometimes. 

I am about to finish the draft soon. Would you like to proofread? Your help will be very much appreciated. 

Level C missions are absolutely fine. Sure, once they come up, we nod our heads "okay, a difficult one today", and there might be a case when one of the players says "man, I really don't feel for this one today, would you mind a re-roll?", but this is all on the agreed-upon basis.

As for proofreading, absolutely, count me in :)

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/11/2017 at 0:36 PM, Errhile said:

IMO 20x20 (currently using 3.0) isn't obsolete at all. I can't really compare it to the ITS Season 9, since... 20x20 is the sole mission system we use in my local meta

This

is there any update? @prophetofDoom

Also you should really create a thread of 20x20 on the new forums!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will. I just found the way back to this forum. 

Version 4 has taken more turns than expected, now it is 5 new missions! I hope to get some testplay in. I'd send you the text if you like so you could look at it and maybe try a new mission? 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My group has played a lot of 20x20 missions, so I imagine I owe you somewhat. Thanks for all your time and effort. We treated 20x20 as an ITS-lite. Beginning players who might not have doctors, engineers, hackers, etc... at their disposal could jump right into a 20x20 with only minimal impediment.

 

Intercept Enemy Communication – I like the idea behind this mission, and it presents some interesting variants on usual games, but tends to degenerate into the vast majority of each force hiding near the back of the board while a single brave hacker runs forward to scan as many targets as possible, while giving a maximum of one point back come the next turn.  Adding a restriction that a single model can only hack any other model once a turn would force players to run several troopers forward and make a game rather than a "best hacker" blitz.

 

Investigate Alien Artifact – This mission really really tends to favor the player that goes first and gets a turn one scan off and throws up a defense. Afterward, the second player is extremely hard-pressed to catch up. If they can't get a turn one scan, the game is probably lost.  Perhaps change the rule forbidding only one scan per turn, to instead allow only one scan on turn one, and two scans on turns two and three.

 

Occupy Buildings – I think it is just a semantic distinction, but the “at least three buildings” and “which structures or terrain features supplement...” lines tend to lend confusion on picking buildings. When we first played this mission we assumed there was no upper limit to the actual number of buildings you can occupy, thus greatly favoring armies with hordes of troopers that sit back and just hold structures and never advance. (I.e. If there are 20 buildings on the table, you can hold all 20 buildings.) Perhaps specify exactly how many buildings can be occupied and where they should be located.

 

Escape with Dropship – I realize that you have absolutely no control over the ridiculously undersized and crappy dropship that CB put in the marker PDF, but it greatly soured me on any dropship missions. We tried to create an actual S8 construction, but never came up with a good proxy. The rules for this mission are fine, but the lack of a big S8 centerpiece limits this mission's actual utility and playability.

 

Save the Scientists – It's our own fault, but we missed the “second digit” scatter distance on the dice the first few times we played this mission and usually ended up with two or more scientists scattering deep into one player's deployment zone. Perhaps roll a D20 and just halve the distance?

 

Thanks again for all your time.  We had a lot of fun with it.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 14/12/2017 at 11:29 AM, Scott581 said:

My group has played a lot of 20x20 missions, so I imagine I owe you somewhat. Thanks for all your time and effort. We treated 20x20 as an ITS-lite. Beginning players who might not have doctors, engineers, hackers, etc... at their disposal could jump right into a 20x20 with only minimal impediment.

Thanks for the feedback. I will give some thoughts to the points raised. Unfortunately, it is impossible for me to test all the missions to true satisfaction. There is an almost infinite number of elements that can change how the game turns out, it is almost impossible to foresee all problems that could arise. 

Intercept Enemy Communication – I like the idea behind this mission, and it presents some interesting variants on usual games, but tends to degenerate into the vast majority of each force hiding near the back of the board while a single brave hacker runs forward to scan as many targets as possible, while giving a maximum of one point back come the next turn.  Adding a restriction that a single model can only hack any other model once a turn would force players to run several troopers forward and make a game rather than a "best hacker" blitz.

 

I have played that a couple of times and never had a problem. Remember that there is also a secondary mission which might get some troopers out. I also don't think what you describe results in a horrible game or that it is necessarily a great strategy to approach the mission this way. I will think about your idea, though. 

On 14/12/2017 at 11:29 AM, Scott581 said:

Investigate Alien Artifact – This mission really really tends to favor the player that goes first and gets a turn one scan off and throws up a defense. Afterward, the second player is extremely hard-pressed to catch up. If they can't get a turn one scan, the game is probably lost.  Perhaps change the rule forbidding only one scan per turn, to instead allow only one scan on turn one, and two scans on turns two and three.

I will give this a thought, I think your criticism is quite valid. 

 

Occupy Buildings – I think it is just a semantic distinction, but the “at least three buildings” and “which structures or terrain features supplement...” lines tend to lend confusion on picking buildings. When we first played this mission we assumed there was no upper limit to the actual number of buildings you can occupy, thus greatly favoring armies with hordes of troopers that sit back and just hold structures and never advance. (I.e. If there are 20 buildings on the table, you can hold all 20 buildings.) Perhaps specify exactly how many buildings can be occupied and where they should be located.

It is all buildings with no limit and larger armies thus have an advantage .I will check the wording again.  20x20 allows for more casual games, but it is still obviously an advantage to tailor your list to the mission. I like this unique approach to wargaming found in Infinity. I just think that ITS can be a bit too much at times. 

 

On 14/12/2017 at 11:29 AM, Scott581 said:

 

Escape with Dropship – I realize that you have absolutely no control over the ridiculously undersized and crappy dropship that CB put in the marker PDF, but it greatly soured me on any dropship missions. We tried to create an actual S8 construction, but never came up with a good proxy. The rules for this mission are fine, but the lack of a big S8 centerpiece limits this mission's actual utility and playability.

I know, but I did not want to miss out on dropships. The mission has been played with all kinds of models. Just adapt to what you have. 

 

Save the Scientists – It's our own fault, but we missed the “second digit” scatter distance on the dice the first few times we played this mission and usually ended up with two or more scientists scattering deep into one player's deployment zone. Perhaps roll a D20 and just halve the distance?

This mission has been changed to several times, and in Version 4 I plan that the players just place the scientists on ground level. the way it is done in the current version is exactly how such dispersion was done in an earlier version of ITS. I have seen the flaw and this way of dispersion will not be used at all in 20x20 anymore. 

 

Thanks again for all your time.  We had a lot of fun with it.

You guys could join my 20x20 facebook page and download the latest testversion of 20x20. Help is always appreciated. This feedback was very useful. I am happy to read that you like my missions. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites