Man, I kicked the hornets nest didn't I.
Jidmah wrote:
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:Jidmah wrote:
What
exactly is too random about the
CA missions?
That several of the missions are of exceptionally low quality. There are about 3 decent ones and 3 bad ones. A mission pack being 1 pretty good one is far better.
I've expressed that I'd prefer crusade or 4 pillars to ITC. Crusade is really good, and 4 pillars is just ITC without the secondaries, which is an improvement.
All that is just personal preference though. I don't like crusade because it rewards casteling up and shooting too much, with little to no reward for agressive plays. Not a single thing about that is random.
Most everybody agrees that maelstrom is too much random since only like one store I've been to plays it, which is informing my belief that this whole thing about "needs to be random to force adaptation". Pretty much everybody agrees that how you win shouldn't be random, so few people play maelstrom.
When you had a deck of 36 cards which might elevate you to 20+
VP one game while it kept you at 3-5 in another, I agree with this. I stopped playing maelstrom during CA2018 for this reason, despite loving the idea - the game was won by the deck, not by the players.
CA2019 though? Both players tend to burn through 15-16 out of 18 objectives (assuming no turn 6) of their choice and can spend
CP to eliminate the unlikely chance of a dry spell all together. When one of the new maelstrom games is lost by a large margin, it's usually because one player is getting pasted on the battlefield.
Jidmah wrote:So... why didn't your opponent bring units with fly or fast units or scouting units? Have units with bombs to blow holes in your barrier? Or use stratagems or warlord traits that allow redeployment like da jump? Or fight twice stratagems to not only punish you for setting yourself up for first turn charges, but also to consolidate onto the objectives? Or stratagems that allow you to shoot stuff that's coming too close like punishing volley or auspex scan? Why didn't he put his three markers in positions where he can defend them easily during turn 1 and 2 instead of putting them midfield? Why didn't he just just charge a friggin daemon primarch/melee knight/lord of skulls into half your army?
*no answer*
I didn't really think it needed an answer. Four points, though, since you want one:
1: Objective markers are placed before determining deployment zones, and placed by alternating order, 6" in and 12" apart. That basically should say all you need to know about why he didn't and could not place his objective markers safely in his zone. He A: didn't know where his zone would be or even what it would look like, and B: had to place his objectives such that they were far enough away from the ones I put down. In general, I try to place objectives in such a way that it prevents my opponent from placing objectives in good positions, like sheltered buildings and board corners. My basic process for objective placement is along the lines as follows: Usually, my first objective goes towards the midboard, just far enough from the edges that the 12"+6" will prevent objectives from being placed further edgeward than it, and usually in the open more than 3" from any good positions or cover. My second objective is usually placed more into the potential zones, but also in the open because I have no guarantee that the one I place it in will be mine. Last one goes somewhere that's left, or is placed aggressively to interfere with the opponent's placement. Some times I shake this up if I'm facing somebody who I don't expect to be able to really last long in the middle against and get my objectives in edges and corners, but it's risky to do that since there's like a 50/50 chance that I could just get completely screwed if I put objectives in safe places and they don't do the same. You usually want to mirror the enemy objective placement. If one player places defensively and one player places aggressively, you stand a chance to just get really screwed if you don't get to pick zones.
2: He obviously didn't have a daemon primarch or lord of skulls. You're getting kind of ridiculous here. Beyond just not owning one, I haven't seen a Lord of Skulls on the table for the entire duration of it's existence as a model, a player reasonably new to the game definitely has no expectation owning one much less using one.
3: Only units within 1" of the enemy [or charged in the charge phase] are eligible to fight. To the best of my or his understanding, he can't Fury of Khorne an unengaged unit for 6" of movement towards the closest enemy unit.
4: Movement occurs before psychic, shooting, and fighting. He doesn't have an opportunity to clear the screen until after he's been unable to cross it.
Jidmah wrote: Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:Enemy had transports in that game. Neither bikes nor transports can move through buildings or other models. It's not having a high speed, it's being able to be there before the enemy gets there. If I have infiltrators, and you have infiltrators, if I have first set up then only I get to use my infiltrators, basically [at least, if I have like 3 or 4, which is pretty standard for a
SM list. My Space Wolves run 2 infiltrators plus eliminators plus phobos wolf lord, which is 4 placements and enough to pretty much deny forward placement to the enemy if I go first. Other
SM lists from my friends have more, with invictors and incursors and etc]. If I have infiltrators and you have vanguarders, I get to use my infiltrators but you don't get to use your vanguarders.
I also didn't try to go for the full all out-aggression in the other lockdown game I played, since the first one went well but had a lot of opportunity to go wrong since I was relying on 9" charges without fixing, and it's just turned out that the one I needed most happened. The second time I played I played the same basic strategy but more conservative and controlled for a turn 3 win that I felt more assured of getting.
6:13 [5-2, then 4-2, then 2-2], only if the other one in your deploy doesn't go away. If the 25% chance that the second one in your deploy is #2, it's 4:14 [5-2, then 5-1, then 4-1] [and 5:13 if it's #3], if you're starting your turn 4 in your deployment zone, you can't reasonably expect to actually score 4 [3 objectives are in play on t4, and 2 on t5+], 3, and 3 points for the rest of the game with normal or transported movement. And if you can't take #1 immediately, then you're looking at scoring 9 more points to their 1 more, which going into that at 4:14 isn't enough to win remotely.
Objectives are placed by alternating order 6" in and 12" from each other before determining deploy pattern. We usually approach this making our #1 or #2 placement such that it inconveniences people trying to take them and prevents them from being positioned into well-defended and sheltered locations.
As for whether he could have played better we've already had this discussion, since we discussed this scenario like 5 pages ago when it was closer to having happened. He could have played better if he had known what was going to happen, and he was newish and I not nearly so, so I was much more likely to win than him. But I don't think that he really had the opportunity to make mistakes etc. that game. The decisions he did make were decently well informed and logical, but there just wasn't an opportunity for him to make a different.
So, to sum all that up:
- You are a player with years of experience, while the opponent was "newish". Considering your track record in other missions you are clearly the stronger player of you two.
- Your opponent's army was absolutely not equipped to handle the lockdown mission. If you bring 0 troops units to pillars, you are going to lose that as well.
- Your opponent is using units which are generally considered to not be working well in large numbers
- Your opponent dropped his objectives where they were convenient for you, but not for him
- Your opponent failed to clear objectives despite the units using to grab them not being particularly durable
- Your opponent failed to clear enough of your movement blockers to fit rhinos through
- You got lucky in crucial moments
So basically your opponent had a terrible list and made terrible decisions, while you had a perfect list and got lucky. And you blame the mission and its randomness?
Does one have a chance at winning in ITC when they bring lists which maximize their opponent's secondaries, are unable to clear and hold objectives and doesn't move out of their deployment zone?
Your tactic of blocking off the enemy's access to objectives works just as good or bad in crusade, he would have lost that mission for the same reason he lost lockdown.
From my experience from playing against invictors and phobos marines of any color, I know that getting that close to my orks or death guard is a death sentence for all those units, which then usually leads to a crushing victory for me due to the large amount of points they lose.
Okay, BR as best as I can reconstruct it [again], since it was like a month and a half ago:
Katherine, Grey Knights, 1500 [pre-RoTD]
GMNDK, Librarian, Strikes, Interceptors, Paladins, Paladin Ancient, Vendread
Opponent, Chaos Space Marines [Red Corsairs, I think], 1500
Cultists, shooty
CSM, mounted up Berzerkers, Havocs, Apostle, and some miscellaneous
HQ's and other units that I don't remember
Deployment was Dawn of War on Lockdown. I chose objective 1 to be deep in my field but exposed, he chose objective 6 to be inside a 3-sided multi-story building that was close to his frontline on one of the far flanks. I understand his logic for doing so, since it seemed pretty defensible, he put his havocs on top of the building, and the other choice deep in his zone was very exposed [and would come up objective #2]. That said, the choice ultimately proves fatal for him.
My deployment is unimportant, since most of my stuff was either in deep strike or going to redeploy on the first turn.
His deployment included havocs in the tower over #6 and cultists holding the objective on the first floor below them [a second fatal mistake on his part]. His Zerkers set up in the middle, behind a line of cultists to protect them from t1 charges.
Turn 1: Katherine
I moved up to take objectives, and then jumped my intercessors forward towards the middle to take the objective in the middle near him. I gated a unit of strikes over by #6. I shot some stuff in my shooting phase, presumably. Then I charged. The strikes made a lucky charge into the cultists guarding #6, and one of the interceptor squads charged into the cultists screening his berzerkers' rhinos. The cultists didn't offer resistance, and died or routed. The strikes packed up and consolidated onto #6 within the building, and the interceptors remained spread out to block his movement but consolidated forwards a little. They formed a line about a foot long between two buildings.
6-0
Turn 1: Opposition
Dismounts 'zerkers and characters from rhinos since the tanks won't be going anywhere. One group runs off to retake 6, one group stays to confront the interceptors. Shooty guys plink away at my interceptors in the midfield with their bolters and stuff ineffectively, and shoot almost all their big guns at the dreadknight 'cause it's scary, which is didn't die because it's a 3++ dreadknight grandmaster, and was only mildly irritated by degrading since it had a flamer anyway. He winds up having difficulties charging my guys in the building on point 6, and the group in the middle wipes out my screening interceptors. He fights with the berzerkers and then consolidates forwards a really long distance, but doesn't touch my interceptors in the middle, and I still hold the point.
7-2
Turn 2: Katherine
My deepstrikers arrive, and because the librarian is with them, they have re-rolled charges. My guys walking spread out to deny him drop zones for his guys, though I make sure to get a squad of strikes on the interceptors' point. to keep him from taking it. Some of the interceptors move around the clump of berzerkers and characters to try to mess with the shooty guys and empty rhinos, the others stay to fight the berzerkers. The battle starts to get going, and I shoot up some of his stuff with psybolts and the dreadknight's big flamer, and then charge in, ultimately destroying most of the 'zerker & character blob and his warlord there. I don't succeed in charging his berzerkers going to point 6, but I do succeed in charging some
CSM hanging out with them with my paladins, and use the opportunity to put my Paladins in his way.
12-2
Turn 2: Opposition
He holds his reserves, since the only places they could come in have no useful
LoS and are too far from objectives. His
CSM and other stuff can't move past the replacement interceptors. They shoot away my interceptors, and the dreadknight. He will be honored by his chapter, he was a magnificent bullet sponge for all the lascannons and chaincannons. His berzerkers charge my paladins, destroying the last guy on the second swing, and though they consolidate a few guys into range of objective 6, they're not obsec so my strikes still have it.
13-2
Turn 3: Katherine
One of the points I hold disappears, and I start pulling back my army, which is starting to look very much worse for wear compared to his, towards the other objectives closer to me and in my zone. After my movement phase, he concedes the game, counting up the points and determining that he just doesn't think he can win even if he tables me by the end of it. He might have made it one more turn if he hadn't had put the cultists on the ground floor, but with his objective disappearing and being perpetually zoned into his deploy, he would have needed raptors or something else flying starting on-board to have actually had a chance at victory.
There was really one major fatal mistake he made, and that was setting up on objective 6, which allowed me to charge it and get on it. The actual choice of objective 6 wasn't bad, I probably would have done the same since it seemed easy to guard, well protected from 3 directions, and just a strong position to be in in general. It was the cultists sitting on it that broke it, since they were an available charge target that without I would have been sitting back in the midfield.
He made other mistakes too, that probably would have added up to him losing the game anyway, but he was less than a year into the hobby and it was his first 1500 points.
In my more recent game on Lockdown, it was less dramatic since I was more conservative and careful about it, but I pulled fundamentally the same trick of zoning in my enemy with Interceptors to prevent them from being able to access points. More recently, I started my warlord on the field and gated him forward so he could give re-rolls to the interceptors on the charge so they could make their charges so I would throw away fewer units and more reliably screen in a greater area [though RoTD also helped me out by upping my lethality between the first game and the second]. This one was also against Chaos, Alpha Legion this time but a superficially similar basic list concept, but a different player. He did better on points, using his
AL stratagem toolbox to avoid being completely trapped in, and I played more conservatively with a less rapid win in mind. Also, both 2 and 3 wound up being objectives near or in his zone, which really sucked for him. He wound up conceding after turn three. I still wouldn't say Lockdown is a good mission. The first game was really bad, the second game was honestly not actually that much better, and kind of informed my thoughts on how I think it really does just come down to getting units out in the midfield earlier and taking the turn to rush the enemy and box them in. I don't think there are any FLY troop choices, so I think that
SM infiltrators might actually be nigh on unbeatable in the mission if they take the first turn. I'm not really eager to try with my Space Wolves though, because I'd rather my weekly game be a good one with a good mission than prove a pet theory with a list tailored to win the worst mission in the packet to prove it's badness.
Though, on other bad missions in the packet and on Space Wolves, I just remembered I actually played ascension twice as well, so I'm actually 8-0-1 on
CA missions. Wolves versus
IG, and he didn't stand a chance because it was trivial for me to keep my characters alive on the objectives and kill his when they tried to contest it, since a wolf lord with a thunder hammer and a storm shield will basically always beat a company commander with a chainsword trying desperately to not-lose the game.
8-0-1 is technically a lot better record than I am on ITC missions [though I've played a lot more than 9 ITC games over the course of this edition], and that showing has been generated with all my factions instead of basically just my sisters of battle and sometimes my guard, but like I've felt like some of my games were just decided by the mission being drawn being massively in my favor, some were just unsatisfying, and some like the aforementioned were really one-sided in a way that I've only experienced in extreme cases in ITC missions. Coming back has also felt
really hard in all of them that I played, with my early leads turning into runaway victories with careful play and even small early deficits taking like the rest of the game to claw my way back to win by a point or two [or the draw, which I trailed by 2 points in for the entire game until I matched the score on turn 5 right before the game ended by rolling a 2].
There are things I don't like about the ITC Champions Mission Packet. Mostly the secondaries, since they were not all created equal and are basically just designed to punish certain factions [*cough* Guard *cough* There's a reason I don't use my
IG if anything other than pride/bragging rights is on the line, because it's like starting 12 points in the hole.] But overall, I do like them, and think I've had much better and closer games with them over the course of the edition.
60PL 
12PL 
