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.

Anyone else seriously hate DoW? Not the ones made by relic.
It's the most obnoxious deployment ever. Played a DoW game last week as hoarde orks vs monstrous creature nids. Any other deployment and we would've been at each other's throats by turn 2. BUT NOOOOOOOOOOOO. DoW makes it so it was T4 until we had any sort of decent CC going on. It was just shootas vs big version of barbed strangler and that weird lightning attack that's assault 12.
I suppose it wouldn't be quite as bad if we were both mech armies but I'm really getting sick of playing/playing against pure mech armies by now.

Perhaps you and opponent should agree not to play Dawn of War?

MA.

Dawn of War does truly suck. It makes for some really uninteresting games (and broken models, depending on who gets shoved against their back board edge in deployment).

Dawn of War is one of the core missions to balance different types of armies.

If you are just playing against friends though, don't play it.

Fair enough but its not like GW left us with tons of fun battle missions.
There's only 2 choices left if we don't play DoW :(
Now we just pull out planetside or something and relive the days when 40k was fun based.

terranarc wrote:Fair enough but its not like GW left us with tons of fun battle missions.
There's only 2 choices left if we don't play DoW :(
Now we just pull out planetside or something and relive the days when 40k was fun based.

Or, you know, read in the back of the book where there are more missions for narrative play. Or... gasp... make your own missions collaboratively between opponents. And crazy, crazy I know, buy and use the Battle Missions book which has tons of good narrative and fun missions (not necessarily balanced, but that's fine).

<onionbelt>Kids these days don't know how to have fun unless it is typed up and handed to them</onionbelt>

TLDR: Quitcherbitchin and use your imagination.

DoW should be replaced with CQC (close quarters combat)

Both sides deploy 18'' from the table edges.
(this way shooty armies will have a slightly better chance against CC armies, if deployed correctly)

sluggaslugga wrote:DoW should be replaced with CQC (close quarters combat)

Both sides deploy 18'' from the table edges.
(this way shooty armies will have a slightly better chance against CC armies, if deployed correctly)

Umm. So, I assume you meant 'both sides deploy no more than 18" from the table edges'. That makes it a bit difficult for shooty armies unless there is some sort of push back.

Example: an ork in a battlewagon can be at 18", move 13", dismount 2", 1" base, charge 6". So 40". Ouch. Not even talking a Waagh in there.

That's why it's called CQC...

Actually from the middle might be better because armies have to be anti everything...

sluggaslugga wrote:That's why it's called CQC...

Actually from the middle might be better because armies have to be anti everything...

18" from the middle would be the opposite of you want. That'd be a 36" no mans land and 6" deployment zones.

pretre wrote:

sluggaslugga wrote:That's why it's called CQC...

Actually from the middle might be better because armies have to be anti everything...

18" from the middle would be the opposite of you want. That'd be a 36" no mans land and 6" deployment zones.

And?

CC units tend to have some sort of transportation, and Shooty units usually camp.

sluggaslugga wrote:

pretre wrote:

sluggaslugga wrote:That's why it's called CQC...

Actually from the middle might be better because armies have to be anti everything...

18" from the middle would be the opposite of you want. That'd be a 36" no mans land and 6" deployment zones.

And?

CC units tend to have some sort of transportation, and Shooty units usually camp.

And if it is 36" no mans land then Pitched Battle is more of a CQC than CQC is.

I find Dawn of War to be the most challenging. I like the challenge. It is a difficult mission type for me to win. If you don't like it though, don't play it. Seems pretty simple to me.

pretre wrote:

sluggaslugga wrote:

pretre wrote:

sluggaslugga wrote:That's why it's called CQC...

Actually from the middle might be better because armies have to be anti everything...

18" from the middle would be the opposite of you want. That'd be a 36" no mans land and 6" deployment zones.

And?

CC units tend to have some sort of transportation, and Shooty units usually camp.

And if it is 36" no mans land then Pitched Battle is more of a CQC than CQC is.

Hmm... My original plan was 15'' but that would have ruined the 6, 12, 18, 24, 36, 48 number system.

If you want a CQC type mission, I would probably go with the 6" from center. Just know that choppy armies will have a big advantage.

Dawn of War is a necessary game balance to allow different types of armies to actually pretend they are competive (like Eldar).

If it's just for friendly games, there are other options than just the other two basic missions in the book.

As was pointed out, there are variant missions in the back of the (fullsize) rulebook. There's the battle missions book. And if you take a wander around the net, you can probably find any number of other missions that people have set up... Tournament packages will often include variant missions that have been created for the event.

And there's these, mostly adapted from the old 2nd edition missions.

I used to be frustrated by Dawn of War, but then I realized that it's the only game that actually tosses dynamics into the game beyond "Stand at opposite sides of board and shoot until you're in melee." It's not so bad, though I can see why it would be monotonous for two close combat armies. Maybe just 4+ for pitched battle or spearhead?

Hm... tactical advantages of DoW.
Well, I, for one, see it as a huge disadvantage to any foot and/or hoard army. For ranged gunline armies, the game is delayed by 2 turns but that's made up by the fact that your opponent's assault units are delayed too unless they're marines with DOA or pods.
A pretty big advantage to GG hq units as well I imagine. Like say, a company command squad vs a hive tyrant.
But my problem with DoW is, what does it do besides delay the game by a turn and a half? And possibly cause you to lose your HQ earlier than anticipated.

It depends; tactially putting models on the board (i.e. not auto reserving everything) may make sense. For example i can put 16 terminators on the board in DOW (more if they were full 10 man units) meaning my foot sloggers are already at the 24" mark, potentially, while compressing my opponent to a smaller area of the board if they want to deploy something and still get it in cover.

What does it do? Gives you unique deployment techniques and tactics to consider. That alone makes it more interesting.

It sounds like you essentially play all-reserve DOW by default, when you're missing a trick or two. The other thing it does, from a tournament play perspective, is force people to consider how they'd win such a game - as if you dont win all or near-all of your games, youre not placing anywhere. Same as 2 objectives forces you to think about how you get to your enemies deployment zone with SOMETHING to try to win the game, and so on.

Dawn of War is an excellent deployment type that does a lot to change up the game.

I dont like it. I always make my own

Absolutely hate DoW deployment, almost never play it and when I do it's only for special campaign missions.

After reading it, I decided 'I will never play this deployment-crap'

I like it, makes for an interesting and less one-sided first turn.

and 2nd, 3rd and 4th if reinforcements have problems..

nosferatu1001 wrote:It sounds like you essentially play all-reserve DOW by default, when you're missing a trick or two. The other thing it does, from a tournament play perspective, is force people to consider how they'd win such a game - as if you dont win all or near-all of your games, youre not placing anywhere. Same as 2 objectives forces you to think about how you get to your enemies deployment zone with SOMETHING to try to win the game, and so on.

There isn't really anything else to do for both kan walls and bw bashes. Both armies depend on heavy support units and staying together, while the HQ(kff or warboss) has to go in specific places to function. By deploying something, you are effectively beating yourself.

I really don't have a problem with Dawn of War missions. It's a bit biased towards speed based armies, but really isn't all that bad. Certainly not as bad as the sillyness with the Annihilation mission and the awful KP system.

I used to hate Dawn of War, but I've had some very good games with it. It's something I have to be in the mood for.

Jidmah - then you havent built a list that can deal with all missions and deployments. Which isnt the deployments fault - its yours (or the codex writers....)

Thats part of the point of having 3 of each - you need to balance across all types. Its why 2 objectives missions caused people to work out how to reliably get to an opponents zone, etc, to avoid the draw. And so on.