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'm writing to sound out the different approaches people take to choosing the mission level.  In my experience most organized groups almost tend to use gamma, and some players refuse to ever use alpha or omega.  I've found that in a competitive, but friendly, gaming group a roll off between gamma and omega goes a long way towards forcing more well rounded army builds.  In addition, I've been thinking about the benefits of adding alpha to that list.
   One possible benefit of alpha level missions is that V.P. denial armies will have to satisfy mission objectives and not just survive.  Alpha missions are all about the objective, which I find to be a nice change sometimes.  Also, armies that use deep strike, or mass infiltrate will have some problems.  Now naturally, some armies will do better because of alpha's inclusion - marines being a noteable example.  I wanted to hear what the dakka community has to say about this.  Please don't burn me alive...

I believe in the greatest range of missions possible.  This helps limit the most extreme armies.  I also believe in a wide variety of terrain.

Every army deserves circumstances in which it's configuration provides some sort of advantage; you paid the points for the ability so you should expect some chance to use it.

Equally well, every army should expect to fight at a disadvantage, DWV with no jungle, DS with no DS, SAFH that must attack to claim objectives.

I also think that it brings the best generals to the top if they have to fight in a wide variety of circumstances.

We typically roll a d6. 1-2 Alpha, 3-4 Gamma, 5-6 Omega. Many folks poo poo alpha missions, but they can be very interesting and changes your tactics quite drastically.

We will generally play Gamma but will roll for alpha. I played an alpha game last week and it came off relatively well.

The problem is that for some armies, they don't particularly care about which mission level it is. Drop Pods and Lysander/Loyalist Terminator Bomb armies do just fine in any setup.

For pickup games we mostly use the rules straight out of the book- roll scenario, then roll the level.

I agree that it?s part of the rules balance for 4th. 3rd edition always had missions which were purely objective dependent (Cleanse, Nightfight), so it?s not as if the idea of Alpha missions is unprecedented. Infiltrate got better, so having missions which don?t allow it is definitely part of the balance- there are at least three armies that can go all/mostly Infiltrating, and with speed enhancements you?re looking at first turn charges. Escalation is a really interesting challenge for vehicles, and is one of the few really new tactical twists in 4th, so not playing with it seems, again, to be missing the point.

In the two tournaments I ran recently, I designed new missions which did not have you roll, but which mimic the rules structure of Alpha, Gamma, and Omega, so as to preserve the concept and the balance.

I play Alpha Legion, so most of my models have Infiltrate for 1pt. So imagine the irony when your army can't use it's trademark in missions that are Alpha level. Go Gamma.

We have an Alpha Legion player in our local scene too. Since 4th ed came out, his army has been over-the-top awesome in Gamma and Omega missions. Keeping Alpha missions in the mix in the proper ratio is really what keeps the army from being broken.

One reason why I'm interested is that I'm revising my campaign rules in preparation for a map campaign I'll be running this winter.  One aspect of the campaign is that players must build armylists for Combat Patrol, and a separate list for 1000pts, 1500pts, and 2000pts for the standard missions, plus additional 1000pt lists for raids and breakouts and 2000pt lists for battles.  The army list used depends on the resources put into the attack.  I've included rules that make the use of armoured company, drop pods, and mycetic spores cost extra resources.  The rationale behind this is that these attacks will only be used in extraordinary circumstances.  My goal is to force players to make lists that are able to take all comers, but also are not overly reliant on a single method of attack.  I'm not sure if Alpha will accomplish this or if it will just make the players more frustrated.

I've played Eldar 'balanced' (half doesnt start in omega) and it always caused some serious issues. With half the army standing around for the first two turns, and the weak half at that, it was a notable handicap compared to many armies I faced. Often I was frustrated by a more 'gimmicky' style of play coming out on top. For example, my SoBs (5 transports, 3 tanks, jumpers) would have strong benifits to being completely off the table, which would prevent casualties until I could drive on and annihilate a unit or two.

When my local store made a push towards Omega, I made a push towards taking 5-man guardian units that would hide behind buildings. Often they would score 400+ VPs in objectives each game, and cause a lot of cursing. They would still score some VPs in Gamma or Omega, but much less.

In a casual game I play with strategic ratings and choose missions that way. While I believe there is an unfair advantage given by the current system of strategy ratings, I'll play GW's game. The choice of strategy ratings is often enough to determine a game in itself, and sometimes allows you to punish players who take one sided lists (or simply poorly constructed armies).

Nids seem to be the most affected army according to mission level, synapse being the killer.  Eldar were really sensitive too. My SoBs were largely unaffected, which helped in tourneys.  I found a solid marine list didnt bat an eye towards levels, while some chaos armies suffered.

I played mixed armored/foot Eldar in 3rd as well, and as Keldrin describes, it was not as good once 4th ed came out in 2004 and I had to deal with Escalation. Big shocker. They had previously gotten weaker in 2002(?) when the Trial Assault rules came out and removed the ability to shoot one target and assault another. And before that they were weakened in 2001 when vehicles got Fire Point and Access Point rules, and we could no longer hop out of the front of our tanks or shoot out of them. The Wave Serpent was massively weakened when the first Eldar codex came out in 1999 and it dropped from AV14 to AV12 with the field.

And you know what? Each time I changed up my army composition and playing style a bit and continued to win 80%+ of my games. It's only when you get lazy and fail to adapt that you really see your win percentage drop.

Escalation rocks. The balance of Alpha (no infiltrate, # of Scoring units is critical), Gamma (all the tricks work) and Omega (non-infantry out of the pool!) is one of the coolest things about 4th. I strongly recommend using the missions and selection system right out of the book, and designing new missions to either incoporate the same level system or emulate one level or another.

I originally found that Escalation really hampered Monstrous Creatures/Walkers unfairly. All the other unit types that must start in Reserves during Escalation naturally move quickly, so coming on from the board edge didn't really keep them entirely out of the game.

But for Monstrous Creatures, the 6" movement meant that the only way they could really contribute to an Escalation game was if they had some pretty long range shooting, and only then if they arrived by turn three at the latest.

This really, really affects Tyranids, as they have a whole bunch of slow moving Monstrous Creatures and usually represents the bulk of their Synapse as Tyranid Warriors are pretty much poop.


However, after people started noticing that Reserves move on from the Deployment Zone board edge, and that by a strict interpretation of that term, any board edge that makes up the Deployment Zone actually qualifies, the nature of Escalation changed rather dramatically.

Now I've seen quite a few games playing Reserves this way, including at the upcoming Adepticon (its in their FAQ). Allowing Reserves to come on from the shorrt table edges (within your deployment zone) really opens up the possibilities for even slow-moving units when they finally arrive.

You can plan your strategy to hold one flank really strongly, and have your Monstrous Creatures show up to support that flank, or you can have them arrive on the other flank to pen your opponent in.

Even with a 12" deployment zone if a Monstrous Creature arrives on turn 3, he can reach the edge of the opponent's deployment zone by the end of turn 6 just by making his normal 6" move for the 4 turns. If the game lasts an extra turn, or it is able to charge at least one time in the game, it can easily make it into the enemy's deployment zone to do some objective capturing.


I now really enjoy Escalation and I think it is an important and fun part of 4th edition.