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 think the point is that not all missions are meant to be balanced, such that it evens out the playing field as a whole (because there's a chance that army that would crush you gets stuck with an unfavorable mission).
However, with how much emphasis this community puts on "balance" which really seems to mean symmetrical, I'm not at all surprised this mission is getting slammed because it's NOT completely and evenly balanced.
Harlies are also an extremely close-ranged army. You can't have an impact on the board without being in your opponent's face. And your opponent will be on the objective.
If your opponent rushes his units onto the objective, and you put a couple dudes on the outskirts so you still get your invuln save, you are still not controlling it.
I get the idea behind this mission, but it's like they completely forgot there are armies out there that are completely built around their invuln save. Doesn't surprise me. They completely forgot about Harlequins when they released their codex with 8 whole units.
So, personally, the way I’d play this mission with something like Harlequins, would be to leave 1-character backfield in terrain (just in case) whilst being within 12” of the objective. I’d then have everything else skirting around the outside of the bubble turns 1 and 2 in an attempt to maximise the survivability of the army and just focus on killing as much as possible, as quickly as possible. Doesn’t matter if you score the point turn 1 and 2 if I score it for 3, 4 and 5.
Beyond that, this is a mission favouring hordes. 2 Cultist blobs, a couple of Ork Boyz units, Nids, Guard etc. Hell, the mission is almost essentially made for the whole Plaguebearer spam list as they’ll still be -1 to hit and have their FNP. Not having the invuln is an annoyance, but, you still force your opponent to chew through 120 bodies before the end of turn 3 at best, otherwise you risk a draw or loss.
I like some of the changes to mitigate first turn. First Strike is one, but so is scoring the objective at the end of each Battle Round - the second player will know exactly what's needed to dislodge first players, so should have an advantage is scoring points over the course of the game.
Acceptable Casualties is a nice balancing move too if it's not on all missions - means optimizing to try to table isn't always going to be the best move.
The "I Deploy, You Deploy" will save some time for tournaments too - alternating deployment is a bit slower.
Null Field is the only part I don't think will work that well. The idea of units holding the objective being more vulnerable is good, but the execution seems to leave some mono-armies in the cold a bit. However, Harlequins usually have a detachment of Kabalite friends, and Demons can take a Battalion of Chaos Cultists, so it's not like they don't have options for holding the objective.
dhallnet wrote: It doesn't have to be a "central meat grinder" though. 18 inch radius is potentially quite a lot of range between each armies.
A lot of armies can't just stay in the middle of everything, so they will have to find other ways like scoring early and then try to keep opponent out afterwards or whatever.
I think it's an interesting one.
Right - I think people are dismissing it far too easily when I get the feeling it plays very differently.
no invuns + more models within 18 inches of the board center turn 1... its like they decided that orks needed a special auto win mission in addition to their codex.
A lot of the time the game will be over by turn 4, which is one of the worst things about AOS
no invuns + more models within 18 inches of the board center turn 1... its like they decided that orks needed a special auto win mission in addition to their codex.
A lot of the time the game will be over by turn 4, which is one of the worst things about AOS
- Orks in transports don't count
- Orks on foot are moderately easy to kill
- If the Ork player is going first you have an easy response for clean up.
- You can completely ignore their back field
tneva82 wrote: Ignore what? Objective? It's 1 vp per turn so if you wait to the end opponent scores too many points to compensate with rest. And wiping out enemy army isn't too much of a help unless you do it in like 2 turns.
You only need 1 model in it,...
In what, the objective scoring range? I think you mean you only need one more model in it.
Amishprn86 wrote: ...you only need to kill units in it, its just a game of whole can kill better.
That kinda sounds like the intention. Create a big kill box in the middle that gradually gets smaller (PUBG anyone?) so that as the game goes on, opponents get more and more desperate to commit more and more troops into the kill box to score points while simultaneously putting their forces in harms way. It actually sounds awesome. Though if your point is that it's not particularly balanced for all factions, then I completely agree.
After playing a lot of AoS, the 40k missions seems so bad anymore.
The mission itself actually seems pretty good and overall I like it, but that Null Field rule certainly seems to be especially designed to screw over certain armies.
Spoletta wrote: The mission is not balanced for all factions, but that is intended. Remember that this is a mission from CA2018, not from an ITC packet. ITC packet uses a single mission for all games, so it must be balanced for everyone (it is not, but that is not a topic for this thread).
CA missions are a packet of 6 missions randomly generated, in which every mission favors a particular list/playstile, and the logic is that if you go a tournament which uses those missions you have to be prepared to face all of them.
Like the rulebook missions and the CA2017 missions, the single missions are not balanced for everyone, but the whole packet of missions is. Honestly i prefer this approach over the ITC one, but that's my personal opinion.
ITC and ETC went down the path of producing one balanced mission and then cloning it with inconsequential tweaks into different named missions to play over the weekend.
GW are still sticking to producing missions which are distinctly different so that you get the balance over 5 different games over the weekend.
I do not think one approach is better than the other, they are just matters of taste.
As for this one - I think Daemon players in particular are missing that putting a single static objective in the middle forces any opponent to go and sit exactly where a typical daemon army would want them; nice easy assault range. Any army trying to stay out of charge range just gives up too many VP and is relying on getting an early enough tabling to somehow pull out the win. It is a crazy good scenario for assault armies - and still pretty good even for daemons so long as they are a bit crafty with their positioning and keeping expensive units out of the null zone until the time is right.
Wayniac wrote: I don't know, I like varied missions. I think people want too much asymmetrical balance. That said though, I don't see them replacing ITC anytime soon. GW still wants to have interesting variants in Matched Play missions, while the community wants as little variant as possible and as close to identical everything.
What is interesting to note, they went back to the old first turn rules (whoever finishes deploying first chooses) rather than the +1 they had in 2017's missions.
GW makes missions that will balance each other out over a 5-6 game tournament. What they don't understand is that you need to at least BE ABLE to win every game in these tournaments. They massively punish weird, specific army traits in SIgmar too and it ends up being...okay, but you do often lose games just because of the matchup+mission.
Spoletta wrote: The mission is not balanced for all factions, but that is intended. Remember that this is a mission from CA2018, not from an ITC packet. ITC packet uses a single mission for all games, so it must be balanced for everyone (it is not, but that is not a topic for this thread).
CA missions are a packet of 6 missions randomly generated, in which every mission favors a particular list/playstile, and the logic is that if you go a tournament which uses those missions you have to be prepared to face all of them.
Like the rulebook missions and the CA2017 missions, the single missions are not balanced for everyone, but the whole packet of missions is. Honestly i prefer this approach over the ITC one, but that's my personal opinion.
ITC and ETC went down the path of producing one balanced mission and then cloning it with inconsequential tweaks into different named missions to play over the weekend.
GW are still sticking to producing missions which are distinctly different so that you get the balance over 5 different games over the weekend.
I do not think one approach is better than the other, they are just matters of taste.
As for this one - I think Daemon players in particular are missing that putting a single static objective in the middle forces any opponent to go and sit exactly where a typical daemon army would want them; nice easy assault range. Any army trying to stay out of charge range just gives up too many VP and is relying on getting an early enough tabling to somehow pull out the win. It is a crazy good scenario for assault armies - and still pretty good even for daemons so long as they are a bit crafty with their positioning and keeping expensive units out of the null zone until the time is right.
So what is that demon army gonna do against say...space wolf blood claw spam or any other comparable CQC army that has armor saves? The problem with these types of missions is that if you pull the wrong matchup on the wrong mission, you START the game with a massive disadvantage.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/04 20:06:00
Spoletta wrote: There are a lot of missions already that favor one faction over the other, so why are we getting so fixated on this one?
The difference is, my Harlequins might not as well play this mission, literally the only thing that makes them even remotely playable right now is the 4++, and i play with troupes so im already at a handi cap. Im paying an extra 20pts on my transports for the 4++ over the Venoms 5++ to shooting. Im already points hanicap, this mission i will not play, i will concede and move on to the next game.
So, personally, the way I’d play this mission with something like Harlequins, would be to leave 1-character backfield in terrain (just in case) whilst being within 12” of the objective. I’d then have everything else skirting around the outside of the bubble turns 1 and 2 in an attempt to maximise the survivability of the army and just focus on killing as much as possible, as quickly as possible. Doesn’t matter if you score the point turn 1 and 2 if I score it for 3, 4 and 5.
Beyond that, this is a mission favouring hordes. 2 Cultist blobs, a couple of Ork Boyz units, Nids, Guard etc. Hell, the mission is almost essentially made for the whole Plaguebearer spam list as they’ll still be -1 to hit and have their FNP. Not having the invuln is an annoyance, but, you still force your opponent to chew through 120 bodies before the end of turn 3 at best, otherwise you risk a draw or loss.
Kudos for pointing out that with a little thought and ingenuity, there are always strategies to consider even in the face of overwhelming odds. It seems to me that your way of thinking reflects the true spirit of competitive challenge far more than just picking up your toys and not playing anymore.
15k+
Emperor's Spears 2500
Beastmen 10k
