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.

linky linky: http://forums.privateerpress.com/index.php?showtopic=83907

The major changes:
- new scenarios
- Caster kill no longer ends the games except in one of the scenarios (aptly called Assassination)
- No more "move out" rule penalizing you VP for not units that don't leave your deployment zone
- Various clarifications

I like.  Needless to say there's a ton of wailing and gnashing of teeth over caster kills not ending the game, but that doesn't bug me so much.  It does really cramp the style of some of the more obnoxious lists (Sorscha Woosh, Stryker Drop 'n Pop, Skarre Bomb, etc etc).  Overall I think it makes playing to the mission a lot more important rather than just caster kill / VP denial.

I like them too. Although it may lead to the game being even more warinfantry.

I suspect Superiority will have some stuff in it that really hurts Warinfantry lists.

I like as well. And while I think Caster Kill is something that makes this game pretty special, it can limit playstyle and play-time. Anything to get the player to think outside the box and push his/her style, I say.

So Steamroller 2.0 was revised - the main difference was that the Posession scenario was pulled out. Mainly because it was an auto win for some casters.

These are the worst missions ever. Play a few. Choose opponents who have plenty of Advanced Deployment and always give your opponent the option to go first. Then tell me how great you think they are.

 

It occurs to me that if you changed most objectives to award you CP at the beginning of your turn instead of the end, it'd probably all balance out. Awarding at the beginning of your turn means your opponent gets a turn to knock you off the objective before you start scoring.

Ed, Pete and I played a game using a Steamroller 2 mission, and I see what you mean. I plopped Eyriss on an objective and just piled the rest of my guys on top while contesting another. We called it after I reached 5 points and P had none (BTW, we played it Jeff's way, with counting the point at the beginning of the turn).

I think some way of reintroducing the Caster Kill (or earning straight VPs) as a secondary objective might help, or it might make the objectives a bit too much like 40k, where they're sort of 'candy' points instead of being absolutely essential...

Hrm. Sounds like I'm in trouble Saturday.

Scoring at the beginning of the turn will mean that the only things that score are units/models with anti-kill powers. Any Menoth army with the Harbinger (and her "you can't kill my models" spell) becomes nearly unbeatable.

Which is fine with me, as I play menoth.

The two viable fixes I have seen are:

1. Re-add caster kill

2. Make the objectives worth VPs only, so that you just get bonus points for holding them and the game doesn't simply end when you get to your number.

Your #2 is the better choice. Caster kill just makes everything else irrelevant.

Oh, and they need to make it so that Incorporeal models have to become corporeal in order to claim objectives. Camping unkillable wraiths on objectives is BS, and I say that as the faction with lots of arcane bolts.

Would that apply to models that can go invisible as well (Gorman, Eiyriss)?

Ewwww....

Guess I'll find out about SR 2.0 this Saturday. I signed up for a tourney.

syr: As I understand it you can walk up to an invisible model and whack it, you just can't shoot / declare a charge against it. Am I wrong?

According to Gorman's stuff, he can't be targeted by ranged or magic, charged, and
has a +4 bonus to melee attacks. So yeah, you can walk up and whack him, but you'll
need something pretty potent to actually hit him.

Enh the +4 is nasty but not insurmountable.

There are other ways around it - for Darius I could do the whole halfjack meltdown trick. Granted it NEVER works for me (for some reason I cannot meltdown a halfjack to save my life, literaly the half dozne or so times I've tried I've missed each attack roll) but in theory it'd work. Invisible is obnoxious, but it's not the total crapper of "you can't hurt me unless you have a direct damage magic spell" that incorporeal is.

Posted By Jeff on 07/19/2006 11:19 AM
Invisible is obnoxious, but it's not the total crapper of "you can't hurt me unless you have a direct damage magic spell" that incorporeal is.

Well, you should know if there are cryx players at the tourney before you get there. So its pretty good meta-gaming to have something to counter the incorpreal models.

And given the 2 army list format for SR2.1, its even easier to take care of.

Oh absolutely - stuff to counter incorporeal is pretty much mandatory. It's a good thing that my faction (Cygnar) has plenty of it. But from an overall perspective I think it is a little bit suck. I don't think that Khador, for instance, has nearly the level of anti-incorporeal stuff that Cygnar has. And they don't have arc nodes to channel it safely, either.

Jeff and Felix: yeah, invisible is not exactly a game winner by itself, but it (along with camoflage) a Good Trick defensively, moreso (I think) than incorporeality, as it saves you from shooting for a turn (giving you time to get some support there from your own lines) and gets you that point. I'm sure there are easy ways to counter it and I wouldn't build all my tactics around it, but again, a Good Trick.

Yair, I am resigned to my fate.

Wasn't SR 1.0 gain points at the start? Or am I thinking of something else?

About contesting points: Someone explained to me at the tournament that the
points were mathematical. Only one figure could stand on it (Killing Field). So even
though you use something like a penny, the figure standing on it gets the point if
he was there first.

Contesting I think you were playing King of the Hill. That scenario was nasty
(my opponent basically started with three models on the hill. I couldn't even get
one model onto the hill. The terrain was borked).

I like the 2.0 missions. There are a handful of very powerful combos - I'm thinking Baldur & the Old Witch in King of the Hill as two prime examples - but the key to playing them is to realize that you are playing a mission, not a battle. You have been ordered to take that hill, cross that line, or hold these positions for some reason. THose are your orders, carry them out.

Now, killing your opponent while you achieve that order - that's allowed. Killing your opponent while NOT carrying out your order - that's disobeying orders and you loose. If you look at the missions in that context you begin to see a new dimension to the game.

There are a few ways to go about achieving these objectives - going first with fast or advance deploying units seems to be the primary method. It's an obvious method - but it works. There are other ways to achieve these goals - and ways to deny your opponent these goals. Think Push attacks, slams, 2-handed throws. After the novelty of these missions wears off I can see them being a bit deeper than they appear right now - put your thinking caps on and I'm sure you'll see that too.

All of the defenses of Steamroller 2.0 sound like "It's not the missions, you're just too stupid to enjoy them. Think more and they'll be better."

And that's ridiculous.

I can't remember the last warmachine tournament I was in that I didn't win, and just won a steamroller 2.0 tournament saturday, but I'm still saying the missions are way too arbitrary in their objectives, and the games are alot less fun because of it at best, and not even a game at worst. And anyone that disagrees with me has merely to let me go first in any of the steamroller scenarios besides assassination and I'll happily demonstrate my point.

Have you looked over the brainstorming on the PP boards?

Some. But PP is adamant that they aren't changing the rules, so what's the point.

I'm still enjoying the game, even if I'm getting some easy wins.

I don't even know when 2.0 was, or 1.0, so I have no timeframe to work
with. How long was it until they went from 1 to 2?

How do your King of the Hill games go with two Advance Deploy armies?

Whomever has Sorscha wins in the all advanced deployed wars

Expect SR 2.0 to be around for at least a year.

Sorcha is an autowin in those scenarios against some (many) armies, but she still has to be played correctly. She's still only about as dominant as she already was (which was very).

I have no idea how you beat her in king of the hill, but in all of the others she's beatable because she's limited in the area she can cover. But you're definitely starting off in the hole.

Out of curiosity, Ed, were you playing with the newest version, where you can't score in the first turn?

At the tournament I ran on Sunday, we had a really good Sorscha AD player and a really good "Banes from Hell" Cryx list go at it and they tied on Pendulum. I've found the first turn thing helps quite a bit with the imbalances.

The Gangers and I chatted about it, and I'm mostly against 2.0 because of caster kills. The reaction for caster kills not ending the game is to take more infantry, something already prevalent. I want folks to take 'jacks. It's almost to the point that I'm thinking they need to be a "1+" requirement in a list...