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.

So, I've been reading too much Battle College these past few weeks and I noticed a pattern: A lot of tactis seem to revolve around killing the enemy Warlock/Warcaster. Now, I know that the game doesn't have to end with the death of the leader but I've noticed that in a lot of games I've played, that's usually how it ends.

What are your thoughts about this? Seems like a waste, that a game where giant crocodiles can wrestle with steam-powered pirate robots to focus on these things.

Assassination is the only way to end any type of game (scenerio or non-scenerio) so that's what Battle College concentrates on. The other ways to victory are too dependent on other things to be addressed in a general article like they use on BC.

It's where the chess analogy comes in. Take the king. If you were to continue on without your caster you would typically be so severely hampered that you would lose anyway. All jacks under their control turn off and beasts go docile. They lose a large chunk of their spell support in the process as well.

But here's the thing, it SOUNDS really easy to do, but when you're better at the game and facing better opponents, you'll find out that it can be like prying open a can with your finger nails. There's many ways to protect casters and risk management can reduce threats.

I think it's more about scenarios being much harder to pull off realistically than a straight up 'caster kill. Also some scenarios encourage a 'caster kill even when both people might be playing for scenario win.

Take Close Quarters for example. You caster has to be in the closer control area and you need to control the further control area. If both players are trying to win by scenario, then a fair chunk of each army is going to try to take the further control area, which is where the other player's caster is trying to sit.

I usually don't win by scenario(hell, or hardly get Control Points) unless my opponent makes a mistake like not getting in the control area.

It also makes them feel more important IMO

If you lose your HQ or Lord in other games its a shame but it doesn't matter.

If you lose your caster/lock its doom.

In gaming leagues you get less points if you dont win by the mission objectives which can cost you in the long run.

Tzeentchling9 wrote:I think it's more about scenarios being much harder to pull off realistically than a straight up 'caster kill. Also some scenarios encourage a 'caster kill even when both people might be playing for scenario win.

Take Close Quarters for example. You caster has to be in the closer control area and you need to control the further control area. If both players are trying to win by scenario, then a fair chunk of each army is going to try to take the further control area, which is where the other player's caster is trying to sit.

I usually don't win by scenario(hell, or hardly get Control Points) unless my opponent makes a mistake like not getting in the control area.

I basically feel the same way. The scenarios are there to force to to move close and risk your caster...if assassination is valued the same as scenario why bother playing the scenario in the first place. It takes good tournament format to actually make playing for scenario wins feasible.

The fact that the game is about caster kill first and foremost is what makes it such a great and enjoyable tactical challenge. You can't win by just throwing your stuff forward, no: you have to keep lots of things in mind at the same time, because you need to make sure every way to attack your caster is guarded while trying to stop your opponent from doing exactly that. All your other troops are absolutely expendable if sacrificing them will give you a chance to kill the other guy's caster. At the same time, your caster's offensive qualities may be wasted if you keep him too far back. To continue the chess analogy, the caster is the king and the queen at the same time, he mustn't get into any danger, but then again, you need to make his killyness count, too, or you'll play at a disadvantage.

I love it.

If it were just scenario play, where you have to have a few units in this zone or that, it would grind down to attrition. It'd be boring soon and using different casters would barely influence the game.

When I first started up my local PG viewed scenarios as a way to make support 'casters viable and keep assassination 'casters honest. Assassination was retained as a game ender to keep assassination 'casters viable and support casters honest. To put it in different words: In a game that strongly encourages aggression having assassination and scenarios subtly adds the requirement to think and play with a certain amount of defensiveness. No matter how close to winning via one method you still need to prevent losing by the other. But it's just plain easier to talk about assassinations. Much like every table top game forum in existence always has a staggeringly high discussion disparity between lists and battle-reports.

Assassinations are the heart of the game. Killing the Warcaster/Warlock stops the warjacks and warbeasts from being a threat and means that the buffs and debuffs that come from the warcaster can't help the army. It is a devastating thing to happen. I've played two player games and after a caster has been lost it turns into an uphill battle akin to rock climbing for the players a caster down.

When players start with this game it's with battlebox or similar (usually) and at that point people start to learn that assassination is the way to win precisely because it is the only way. When scenarios are introduced most players are just playing not to lose by scenario and win by assassination.

To win at scenario you do need a different way of playing. It's not just run at the enemy screaming. OK, that's a slight simplification of some assassination runs, sorry. But to win via scenario you need to know where the enemy has to be and how to move them off that area, be that by really moving them or destroying them

some people here have never played against properly tooled up denial army lists.

Khador's old witch popping her feat is often enough to get the win, purely through denial. i get control points simply by your inability to move closer and contest. i've won tournament games with a death toll of about six models in the past through clever denial/control shenanigans. I've played enough games with epic Irusk to know how to clear out a flag/control area, grab a control point, and reposition to deny a counter move. result being next turn is a second control point scored and victory.

scenario wins are rated higher than assassinations in the steamroller scorings. assassination exists as a viable playstyle, and as your ace in the hole. in happens, and the game is built to handle it, but it is not built specifically for assassination.

that said, assassinations are fun, but i do enjoy a proper grindfest as well.

I like the fact that at some point you can assassinate the caster to win the game. Other game systems I have played it is usually a forgone conclusion who is going to win by the half way mark (not always). What I love about warmahordes is the fact your army can be cleared off the board but if you can find that one opening you can snatch victory from defeat. Makes it exciting to the very end.

If you are palying casual its the way you win the game. You dont have to to play for scenario in the Steam Roller format, but you will not place in the top spots even if you go undefeated. The scenarios are for balancing and scoring. each set of scenarios will reward certain list builds and punish others. Part of being a skilled Warmahordes player is list bulding to optomize the strenths of your faction and choosing the best list for each mathup in a given scenario.

I suggest you guys check out the Steam Roller pack and give it a try. Scenarios and timed turns are game changing.

ICleadpeople wrote:If you are palying casual its the way you win the game. You dont have to to play for scenario in the Steam Roller format, but you will not place in the top spots even if you go undefeated.

Yes you will. Steamroller uses Swiss format pairings based entirely on win/loss, and scenario points don't enter the equation for determining a winner until the second tiebreaker, right after strength of schedule. And I've never seen a tie go past SoS.

I've won a few games with Cryx after being on the ropes with a simple caster kill. In one memorable game I had killed half a unit of Errants in total, and he had me down to Denehgra and a Deathripper.

I don't think we played for a month after that.

Tournament play is where the scenarios start to matter. It normally only takes 2 control points to win a steamroller scenario and in a small amount of scenarios you need only 3. Scoring happens on BOTH player's turns so if you cannot push your opponent off the scenario on your turn you will lose. So the mistress of scenarios is quite unforgiving. I lost to a player in my last scenario because I failed to realize I could win by scenario easily, but I was so focused on assassination that I failed to see the forrest for the trees - so to speak.

Once you decide to participate in Steam Roller events or get your local game club to start incorporating Steamroller scenarios into your games and leagues then you will see the finess required of this game. Yes I agree that assassination will end any scenario, but if you do not learn your scenario's and how you will get beaten by them you will still only be a medicore player (like me hehe).

I just lost two games due to scenario and movement denial (Bartholo's feat... annoying), so yes, scenarios are important. But if you didn't have to protect your caster at the same time, it would be a lot easier to win by scenario and become a slugging match, taking the finesse away again.

So basically, the caster kill victory condition makes sure that the game remains complex.

i win about half my games to scenario.

I only go for the caster if i have to.. its always.. Charge.. wiff wiff wiff.. /sigh

I think the following guideline works: If you want to win, play for scenario only. If you want to be a boy, go for the kill only. If you want to be a man, play for scenario, but go for the kill whenever you can and say F winning by this scenario. Most people find the 3rd option the funnest imo as its best for BOTH parties in terms of a fun game and not for the single person. Of course its all MU dependent also.

I like to think of a 'caster kill as something like a headshot. Destroy the brain and you destroy the ghoul... err, 'jack/beast. It's for this reason that players have to keep their 'caster in mind when doing anything, much like one has to keep the idea of keeping one's head and other vitals behind cover if being shot at or otherwise assaulted (or so I would presume, given my life's current lack of firefights). It's a logical extension of the tactics available to a player.

I play the scenario for a bit to ease my opponent in then I just go for the throat 9 times out of 10. Always love that look of surprise when I forgo control points to stick some titan fists into his face.