Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I got my Battle Missions book the other day and on first reading, I was a bit disappointed, like many readers here. The missions seemed pretty bland (esp Chaos Marines) and very often the default victory was either Kill Points or Objectives. Ho hum. I read reviews on the boards and I agreed, feeling slightly chagrined by my purchase.

Until last night. I teach High School and run the Sci-Fi club. Some of the guys noticed my models and wanted to learn how to play, so I’m obliging them and teaching them the basic rules. With typical 15 year old delight, they are latching on and becoming quite interested in building armies of their own.

We all remember that stage in our war gaming life. Some one took us by the hand and led us through the initial rule phase, often throwing fights so we didn’t give up and were encouraged by our victories.

After 10 or so games, when you understood the rules, you started making better moves and though ahead some, but your friend was in a bind. You were still not thinking tactically and would forget small but important rules (grenades, anyone?) and your friend could easily wipe the floor with you. You were good enough to play, but not good enough to win and we know it is no real fun to punt around those guys because winning is so easy. It will take another 20 to 25 games before they start to think about the synergy of their army, how to best use units and writing up lists that actually make sense. A long time, in other words.

Until now. Behold, the Battle Missions book, a book which we decried that the missions heavily favored the race they were built for and “unfair” We now have a tool for that awkward war gaming stage of learning to make the game enjoyable for both the beginner and the hard core gamer.

Yes, some of the missions are really unbalanced. I say that’s a good thing, especially for veterans. Place yourself in the disadvantaged armies spot and see if you can beat the person with the advantage! Be those marines who are totally surrounded by ‘Nids and see if you can really bust your way out. Be the Orks who are out flanked by the Tau and see if you can crump ‘em good.

The point I am driving at is that it is time for hard core players to take the most hard core list they can build and give the casual, fluffy gamer a handicap (usually in deployment). Fluffy armies and newer players will love the chance to try new things and have a chance at beating you while you have to radically rethink tactics and are challenged in a new way.

Balance is good, but total and utter balance is boring. Be willing to be the underdog in deployment and prove you are as good as you say you really are.

After reading the whole book i was excited to try and think of strategies too win games I've been set up to lose. Going to play an Ork army tomorrow with battle missions and I think I'm going to let him pick the mission.

thedarksaint wrote:After 10 or so games, when you understood the rules, you started making better moves and though ahead some, but your friend was in a bind. You were still not thinking tactically and would forget small but important rules (grenades, anyone?) and your friend could easily wipe the floor with you. You were good enough to play, but not good enough to win and we know it is no real fun to punt around those guys because winning is so easy. It will take another 20 to 25 games before they start to think about the synergy of their army, how to best use units and writing up lists that actually make sense. A long time, in other words.

You think it takes 30 to 35 games to figure out how to play? I think after a half dozen games a guy will be more or less up to speed, if he isn't yet he probably won't ever be. There'll still be learning experiences when you face an army for the first time, or a new player with a wholly new take on the game, but you should remember grenades and the like by then.


Battle Missions is alright, because it gives some change up missions. It's a little bland, but the alternative was an excess of detail that'd harm replay value. Honestly, the best feature is how the missions will favour one side, because it can be very interesting to enter a game at an advantage or disavantage compared. It's an annoying thing that's crept into gaming, this idea that every game must be completely fair at set up, and I hope this book goes some way towards changing that.