PDA

View Full Version : Are the Scenario's the problem?



Carlosophy
22-05-2011, 16:58
Just recently ive gone back to playing the scenarios from the 4E rulebook and found them to be a lot more fun than 5E ones. This got me thinking about perceived imbalances within the game system and how instead of deriving from codices and powergamers, the simple fact might be the central scenario system is inherently flawed.

Think about it. Vehicles as scoring, contesting objectives and tabling your opponent all seem to have contributed to the downfall of the core gameplay as armies are very open to abuse for every one and players are not forced to take a balanced list and instead can weight it in favour of a certain area to achieve annihilation victory. This got me thinking of new ideas. Perhaps the problem lies in troops only as scoring. Maybe it should be changed from mission to mission to force players to take a more all-round army. Thus:

The core 6 missions would get replaced with the following:

1. Cleanse.
Corner Deployment. Standard Table Quarters Objectives, only units designated as INFANTRY count as scoring. *NOT JUMP INFANTRY*

+++The standard scenario encourages players to spread out and outflank. Models must get out of their transports to capture territory.


2. Take and Hold
Long Edge Deployment. One objective in the centre of the battlefield as well as 2 more within 18" must be captured. TROOPS and ELITES count as scoring.

+++The addition of Elites creates a paradox. Do you risk them in an attempt to assail an enemy position, or do you use them to hold your own turf?


3. Breakthrough
Short Edge Deployment. The player with the most scoring unit in his opponents half of the battlefield is the winner. ELITES, TROOPS and FAST ATTACK count as scoring

+++This scenario relies on speed. Last-minute grabbing can be done with Fast Attack units but did you take enough elites and troops to do the fighting?


4. Clash of Heroes
Corner Deployment. Add up the codex points value of every individual model your HQ choices kill. The player with the most points scored if the winner.

+++This scenario encourages players to take a strong character to lead their armies. This might seem weighted in favour of certain armies (Grey Knights, Chaos) but a canny opponent can always feed them cheap units whilst his own general goes after tastier targets.


5. Seek and Destroy
Long Edge Deployment. You are awarded victory points based on each unit you kill depending on where it was found to start with in the FoC: HQ = 3, ELITES and HEAVY SUPPORT = 2, TROOPS and FAST ATTACK = 1. He who has the most wins.

+++Replaces Kill Points which can be unfair. Note this is done by unit, so if I kill a squad of 10 guardsmen I get 1VP. I don't have to kill the whole platoon unless they blob up. The 'to start with' ensures things are fair vs '...wing' armies who have ELITES that count as TROOPS. They are still worth 2VPs even though they are taken as troops choices.


6. Recon
Corner Deployment. You must gather intel on the enemy. You score a point for each unit that finishes the game within 12" of the enemy that is not locked in assault or falling back. HQ, ELITES, TROOPS and FAST ATTACK are all scoring.

+++A game of trying to outfox an opponent instead of outgun him. Risking getting close can mean a counter attack, but will your opponent want to risk his chances of victory to do so? Might lead to more firefights than assaults.


These are all equipped with a 4-turn limit and random game length added. Annihilation as a victory premise disappears altogether. Players MUST adhere to the conditions in the mission descriptions.

xerxeshavelock
22-05-2011, 17:07
I have found I am ignoring the "fun" parts of a list such as Chaos Chosen or Dark Eldar Trueborn as they are not scoring. Not sure which way I would go to resolve this but the fact they are not scoring is definately a part of it.

LegionX
22-05-2011, 17:11
Well I think the 5th ed. missions are better than 4th due to not having the 3 'complexity levels'. Me and my opponents always just went for the middle 'gamma' level one anyway. I liked the 3rd. ed. missions :D

I liked victory points. However they did away with them as all missions (even objective-based ones) just devolved into 'annhilation'. They made only Troops scoring as many players were just taking Troops because they had to, and GW wanted the 'basic guys' to become more of a focus. However this seems to have turned around a little due to the uber-characters in the SW, BA, GK and DE Codecies :shifty:

Not sure what you mean about vehicles scoring. The mission section of the 5th ed. rulebook specifically says that vehicles (and swarms) are never scoring units... :confused:

Thud
22-05-2011, 18:08
So, in order to combat "imbalance" you put together some of the most imbalanced missions of all time?

Mission 1. Oh, you wanted to make a cool jump pack army? A Space Marine Biker army? Too bad. I win. And what's that? Mephiston is infantry? Glorious!

Mission 2. Assault Terminators are Elites. Just saying.

Mission 3. Vastly favours midfield and assault-based armies.

Mission 4. I play Blood Angels, you play Tau. Go on, try to win.

Mission 5. I don't like the arbitrary handling of kill points.

Mission 6. I actually like the idea behind this one, but there are just too many options to break the mission. If I go second, for instance, and you end your last turn with three units within 12 inches of one of mine. I then assault one of yours, and instead of three points you now have zero, while I get one. Or, did you mean that MY unit couldn't be locked in assault or falling back to get points? I have a feeling you did, but you wrote the opposite.

Then there's the dropping of annihilation. Not good. Let's say I play Tau, you play Blood Angels. Mission 4. Your HQ is Dante, mine is a Shas'O. Dante is in reserve, and somehow manages to muck up his reserves rolls, and in the mean time my Shas'O kills one dude and I'm tabled without killing anything else. And it's still a Tau victory? Come on. Yes, it's very unlikely to go down exactly like that, but weirder things have happened in 40k.

And, finally, you do realize that currently vehicles can't score, right?

Haravikk
22-05-2011, 20:20
While I kind of agree with Thud that the 4th edition scenarios might not be much better, I do think that a better selection of core, randomised scenarios could go along way toward balancing the game, as it is quite an important component of Fantasy.

One thing that'd be interesting to see would be if all scenarios additionally had randomised battle conditions, for example:
Night Fight - Chance of a full-game with Night Fighting, which can punish over-reliance on long-ranged weaponry.
Inclement Weather - prolonged stormy weather has created terrible battlefield conditions and flood most roads; vehicles treat all terrain as Dangerous if moving at Combat Speed or higher, with skimmers treating all terrain as Dangerous at Cruising Speed or higher (the rain and or uncertain ground interferes with the engines or something). The uncertainty for vehicles helps to reign in over-reliance on them for delivering troops who are less affected by muddy ground. Some special areas of ground may be designated as open for vehicles, such as raised or well-maintained road routes.
Ionic Turbulence - the planet's atmosphere is wracked by electrical storms. Deep Striking units subtract -1 from Reserves rolls and scatter an extra D6" (with no direct hits), indirect fire targeting systems are also affected, resulting in no chance of direct hits and an extra D6" scatter.
Tectonic Activity - each game turn roll a D6, on the roll of a 6 earthquake activity is so severe that everyone treats all terrain as difficult terrain (or dangerous for vehicles). Another vehicle discouraging one, but can also punish armies that are too focused on close combat supremacy, particularly using special deployment to get them there since they could end up stuck for a turn.
Raining at night - Inclement Weather + Night Fighting
Quaking at night - Tectonic Activity + Night Fighting

Also, I miss missions with sentries, as these could easily penalise vehicles by having the alarm raised a lot more easily if a sentry sees a tank rumbling past.

WildWeasel
22-05-2011, 22:12
Vehicles can score with a scoring unit in them. Thus the DAVU and Rhino bunkers.

Lord Damocles
22-05-2011, 22:14
I agree with Thud.


My Necrons would be royally screwed by at least half of those missions...

RandomThoughts
22-05-2011, 22:17
They made only Troops scoring as many players were just taking Troops because they had to, and GW wanted the 'basic guys' to become more of a focus.

Which is the wrong approach. I think internal balancing pricing would have been the way to go - take the units that are supposed to be fielded a lot and make them cheap enough (in comparison to the rest of the codex) that people would be mad if they didn't take at least a bunch of them.

Recently someone shot down my suggestion that Eldar Guardians should be available in unit size 5 with a heavy weapon (or two special weapons in case of Storm Guardians), saying this would lead to Guardian spam.

But that's exactly the thing! Troops should be common, and common means spammed! Same thing for Tactical Marines, Imperial Infantry and so on: The moment they become an efficient unit (points-per-value, so to speak), they will get taken. To prevent players from only taking troops, make their uses limited - Tactical Marines could be great at taking damage (same Toughness and Armor as other marines, but only half the price per model) and be great at shooting infantry at short range, but they would also be slow, (relatively speaking) weak in CC and useless against tanks.

Once that is accomplished, they could please, please, please get rid of the FOC as well. I hate being told what I can bring to a battle - people won't spam heavy tanks if there is some balance in the game - just make sure you get that balance right!

LegionX
22-05-2011, 22:27
Once that is accomplished, they could please, please, please get rid of the FOC as well. I hate being told what I can bring to a battle - people won't spam heavy tanks if there is some balance in the game - just make sure you get that balance right!

I'm not sure about this, but there are so many ways to 'bend' thr FOC that it's becoming less and less important. There are now plenty of characters which turn an Elite/Fast attack unit into Troops, as well as 'units' of tanks/MCs (not to mention 'combat squads').

We'll see what they do in 6th edition...

Bunnahabhain
22-05-2011, 22:28
The solutions in the opening post are at least as bad as any current problems.
1,2 and 3 are ok

4 is just daft. Support HQs are vital. So the farseer dooms, guides etc all battle, but never kills anyone? 0 pts for them! And it's not even a factional bias thing; I'm quite happy that a Guard CCs + chimera can gun down all sorts of stuff. Master of Ordnance isn't bad here either..

5 is kill points, but worse. Urrgh

6 is awfully written. I'm not sure what you're trying to do with it, but it would be very possible to game. It also promotes space wolves strongly. Get within 12", and blaze away,a nd if you get charged, you counter charge.
It also promotes vehicles ( except walkers, who need it...)- they can't be locked in combat, so get within 12, and they score....

Your central idea of making different bits of the FOC useful is sound. Your execution is aweful.

Better missions? Using the magic of Copy-pasta, steal the whole mission system straight from Epic. Problem solved.

MajorWesJanson
23-05-2011, 00:06
Just replace the 3x3 of deployment and mission with a 6x6. Lots more variety.

Table
1. Dawn of War Deployment
2. Table Corners
3. Normal long board edge
4. Diagonal
5. Short Edges
6. Dusk Raid- similar to dawn of war, but on turn 2 star rolling for night fight- 4+ on turn 2, 3+ on turn 3 2+ on turn 4, auto on turn 5.

Missions:
1. d3+3 objectives
2. Kill points
3. capture and control
4. Table quarters (more units in the quarter than opponent to claim, all units scoring)
5. Breakthrough (scoring units in opponent's Deploy Zone)
6. Victory Points (old style, half for unit or model under half starting wounds, half for vehicle immobilized or with no weapons left)

PoeGhost
23-05-2011, 02:22
One thing that'd be interesting to see would be if all scenarios additionally had randomised battle conditions, for example:


I've been toying around in my head with these sorts of the things as well. I called the whole game in night fighting rules as the battle being fought on a "twilight world." Or a here's an idea i borrowed from an Imperial Armor book:

Logistical Nightmare: Supplying your troops has proven to be nearly impossible on this planet. At the end of each of your movement phases roll 1d6 for each vehicle in your army. On a roll of 1 (for example), the vehicle has run out of fuel and can not move for the remainder the game. Treat this as the vehicle suffering an immobilized result.

Woodsman
23-05-2011, 05:38
Well these are no solution IMHO. Why should I lose games purely because I take a farseer with 1A?? 40K should make a bit more sense and encourage the general to stay at the back and you know, command his forces.

I think terrain is the problem tbh - our group now plays with 4 different boards:
1 -25% little LoS blocking - the moon...
1 25% all LoS blocking - ruined monastery/similar
1 50% forest - all trees
1 - city board.

We pick names outta a hat for board and opponent, therefore no list tailoring occurs and lists need to be able to deal with whatever board you might end up on.

Grimtuff
23-05-2011, 07:59
[list=1] Night Fight - Chance of a full-game with Night Fighting, which can punish over-reliance on long-ranged weaponry.


As much as I would love to play a mission like this. It won't happen, ever. Every single person I play never remembers it is like this in the first turn in DOW missions, a whole game like this? Their heads will explode...

EVERY. SINGLE. PERSON. :mad:

RandomThoughts
23-05-2011, 10:15
You know what would be fun. Playing Orks or Tyranids against Imperial Guard or Tau in a Night Fight game. :-)

Personally, I think objectives and kill points are the way to go, but they need to a) make all units scoring again and b) introduce more flexible kill point rules. Something I've been toying around with is this: Each player gets an equal number of Priority/Kill Points to assign to his army. No single unit can have more than three. Only these units provide Kill Points to the enemy. The exact number could be either 10 flat out, or one for each 100 points in your army.

Support units (with no Kill Points assigned) should now be ignored, unless they prevent an obstacle for completing the primary mission.

Dorn's Arrow
23-05-2011, 10:25
The problem here is that you're starting with the premise that the system is broken and looking for things that need fixing. The system is fine, the players are what's broken. The sooner people learn that instead of trying to change how other people play they should instead change the people they play with, the better off we'll all be.

Carlosophy
23-05-2011, 10:57
Obviously some random rules from nowhere is imbalanced. It was just a thought, thats all.

Perhaps they should bring back specific objectives for each side. Maybe one army is trying to break through and the other is trying to assassinate?

Grimtuff
23-05-2011, 11:09
Perhaps they should bring back specific objectives for each side. Maybe one army is trying to break through and the other is trying to assassinate?

They already did (http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?prodId=prod630003a) ;)

Haravikk
23-05-2011, 12:08
The problem here is that you're starting with the premise that the system is broken and looking for things that need fixing. The system is fine, the players are what's broken. The sooner people learn that instead of trying to change how other people play they should instead change the people they play with, the better off we'll all be.
This isn't really true; players will do what they're allowed to do, if taking vehicles is a no-brainer then that's exactly what people are going to take.

Warhammer Fantasy's scenarios, while not perfect, do help to balance lists somewhat as any force that's too extreme may struggle on various scenarios.

40k just needs some way to make the use of vehicles a lot less certain, so people only put units that need to be fast into transports, rather than simply putting everything in one, and so-on.

The Dawn of War scenario is a good example of one where the conditions can really affect overly extreme forces, but it only lasts for one turn which is a bit annoying. I like MajorWesJanson's idea on Dusk Raid, and a similar mechanic for Dawn of War could be interesting as well so the Night Fighting isn't so… well, underwhelming (and often overlooked); with Night Fighting being a little more common people might be more inclined to remember the rule as well ;)


With regards to scoring units; I think that keeping them as Troops only is fine, leave it up to the codices to specify any other scoring units, as the reason for Troops only is that they usually have a minimum size of 10, and are typically the least extreme squads. This avoids the problem of Fast Attack choices being able to game objectives/table quarters by waiting till the very end to grab them. I'd be inclined to let Elites be scoring as well but they are quite a mixed bunch so it's probably better for them to be specified as scoring on an individual basis.

AndrewGPaul
23-05-2011, 12:19
Some of tyhose scenarios are much more interesting if you choose the scenario before building your army. The Clash of Heroes, for instance, is no fun inf you bring "support" HQs like Farseers, but if you bring HQs designed specifically to kick **** and take names,it could be a laugh.

I think something along the following lines might be interesting;

1) Choose an overall army points value, say 2,000 points.
2) Determine a mission.
3) From that 2,000 point army list, choose complete units, vehicles, characters up to a maximum of 1,500 points.
4) Play the game.

Obviously, the ratio of deployed force / total army size could be tweaked. By "complete units", I mean you have to field a unit or model exactly as written in your overall army list. If you have a character worth 90 points plus 60 points of weapons and warger, and you only have 130 points left in your "deployed force", tough - no dropping weapons till he fits.

As for choosing the missions, there are several ways you can do it; rolling openly on a chart, with both sides having identical objectives (like 4th or 5th edition), rolling openly on a chart with the possibility of uneven objectives or even force organisations (like 3rd edition) or having each side generate a mission secretly, with each side ignorant of the enemy's objectives (like 2nd edition). Or have a GM run the game, like in Rogue Trader.

xxRavenxx
23-05-2011, 13:38
4. Clash of Heroes
Corner Deployment. Add up the codex points value of every individual model your HQ choices kill. The player with the most points scored if the winner.

This one, is sadly, a terrible terrible idea.

A Greater daemon, Lysander, or GK grand master will mow down plenty of points before being dropped.

A black templar HQ won't kill more than 5 models before he's killed, due to powerfists.

An imperial guard HQ? He'll be lucky to score 30 points before dying.

Its a hideously unballanced scenario.

Oguleth
23-05-2011, 13:54
Now that's irony, I couldn't stand 4th ed due to the missions, and found 5th ed missions to be the winning factor of bothering to play again. At least when playing random people (I can't recall ever having an argument over mission rules, only about RAI/RAW concerning what to deploy during Dawn of War) it's a godsend.

It can get stale (especially Capture and Control) in friendly matches against regular opponents, but then you can just play something whacko if needed. Or just agree on playing armies that is less boring/optimised, for that matter, if it's so horrible.

Bonzai
23-05-2011, 14:03
The only 5th edition scenario that I hate is Dawn of War. Simply because it robs you of a turn or two of movement, and technically shortens the game. I would rather Dawn of War be 12 inch deployment, and a d3 turns of night fighting.

Bunnahabhain
23-05-2011, 14:04
An imperial guard HQ? He'll be lucky to score 30 points before dying.


Nonsense. It said HQs, and said nothing about CC. So a CCS in chimera with special weapons works rather well.

Does melta-gunning a land raider score enough points? Or applying plasma guns to MCs/elite infantry? Or dropping an ordnance blast on something expensive?

AndrewGPaul
23-05-2011, 14:54
How about the HQ with the highest (points cost of models killed) / (own points cost) is the winner in the OP's Clash of Heroes scenario?

Eldartank
23-05-2011, 15:17
It always irritate's and annoy's me when individual's misuse apostrophe's in the word's they write. Sometime's it bother's and aggravate's me, too. Apostrophe's should only be in word's that are noun's or proper name's, and only when denoting ownership. Thank's for reading one of my silly rant's.

(sorry, I just couldn't resist some off-topic nitpicking) ;)

Carlosophy
23-05-2011, 15:25
This one, is sadly, a terrible terrible idea.

A Greater daemon, Lysander, or GK grand master will mow down plenty of points before being dropped.

A black templar HQ won't kill more than 5 models before he's killed, due to powerfists.

An imperial guard HQ? He'll be lucky to score 30 points before dying.

Its a hideously unballanced scenario.

Its in the Battle Missions book already! Its also a great scenario to play with evenly matched armies. I had a right laugh playing it with my sister; She had Straken and his Catachans against my Farsight Enclave. The showdown between both characters was exquisite.

jt.glass
23-05-2011, 15:36
You score a point for each unit that finishes the game within 12" of the enemy that is not locked in assault or falling back. HQ, ELITES, TROOPS and FAST ATTACK are all scoring.Won't this almost always be a draw - if you're within 12" of the enemy then they are within 12" of you! Admittedly, you have a nett gain points for being near units that are not scoring, but since virtually everything is it becomes a game of "chase the Heavy Support"!


I agree with Thud. My Necrons would be royally screwed by at least half of those missions...Isn't being royally screwed Necrons' default state?



They already did (http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?prodId=prod630003a) ;)Pretty-much all (if not all) of the mission in Battle Missions are symmetric, so no, they already didn't.


It always irritate's and annoy's me when individual's misuse apostrophe'sIrritates me too, but I don't see a lot of it in this thread. To which post(s) are you refering?


jt.

Bunnahabhain
23-05-2011, 16:07
Won't this almost always be a draw - if you're within 12" of the enemy then they are within 12" of you! Admittedly, you have a nett gain points for being near units that are not scoring, but since virtually everything is it becomes a game of "chase the Heavy Support"!

jt.


If I have got it right.. (enemy units in combat or fleeing don't count)

Player A 1st unit in combat with Player B 1st unit
--less than 12"---
Players A 2nd unit

Player B gets a point for having a a unit within 12" of an enemy unit not fleeing or in combat ( A's 2nd unit) but as B's 1st unit is in combat, A get no points.

On the other hand, if it actually means your own units, if fleeing or in combat, don't count, then you reverse the above. A's 2nd unit scores 1 pt, and A's 1st and B's first both score 0, as are in combat.

The OPs original suggestion definitely can't mean units in combat/fleeing neither count towards a units score, or can score themselves. That would be symmetrical, so possibly lead to deadlocks, assuming similar unit counts. Of course, MSU would help here...

B's 1st unit
under 12"
A's 1s unit
Under 12"
B's 2nd unit, B's 3rd unit
B has scored 3 here, and A 1

xxRavenxx
23-05-2011, 16:34
Nonsense. It said HQs, and said nothing about CC. So a CCS in chimera with special weapons works rather well.

Does melta-gunning a land raider score enough points? Or applying plasma guns to MCs/elite infantry? Or dropping an ordnance blast on something expensive?

Fair point.

In which case, I'd say that IG would be hideously overpowered instead. How many squads come in one HQ selection? How many are heavy/special weapons teams?

I still think its a VERY stupid scenario for the basic book.

Dorn's Arrow
23-05-2011, 17:04
You get one squad per HQ selection... not exactly OP.

insan0
23-05-2011, 17:13
I would look into using the "rules of engagement" mission/objective generator from 4E? With a few minor tweaks it could be brought inline with 5th.

Easy E
24-05-2011, 20:28
Yes, the scenarios are the problem.

The game shouldn't have any. They should only have scenario hooks. Everything else is up to the player.

However, for pick-up games the "Rules of Engagement" were always fun.

ehlijen
24-05-2011, 23:28
Its in the Battle Missions book already! Its also a great scenario to play with evenly matched armies. I had a right laugh playing it with my sister; She had Straken and his Catachans against my Farsight Enclave. The showdown between both characters was exquisite.

'It's in the battle mission book' isn't exactly high praise for a mission's balancing. The idea for most of them is great, but I found the execution for many lacking. Even killteam, as fun as it is if no one tries to break it, has woefully incomplete rules that leave it breakable.





Which is the wrong approach. I think internal balancing pricing would have been the way to go - take the units that are supposed to be fielded a lot and make them cheap enough (in comparison to the rest of the codex) that people would be mad if they didn't take at least a bunch of them.


Internal balancing will only go so far if the elites and whatnot simply allow for greater force concentration (which they do). The 10 guys shooting 10 guys vs 10 guys shooting 1 out of 10 guys scenario shows that force concentration is vital. 40k offers not just that with elites, but often tougher units too! No wonder things get taken over troops so often; costing is rarely the issue. More than costing is needed: Troops need something that actually makes them as good as elites.



Recently someone shot down my suggestion that Eldar Guardians should be available in unit size 5 with a heavy weapon (or two special weapons in case of Storm Guardians), saying this would lead to Guardian spam.

But that's exactly the thing! Troops should be common, and common means spammed! Same thing for Tactical Marines, Imperial Infantry and so on: The moment they become an efficient unit (points-per-value, so to speak), they will get taken. To prevent players from only taking troops, make their uses limited - Tactical Marines could be great at taking damage (same Toughness and Armor as other marines, but only half the price per model) and be great at shooting infantry at short range, but they would also be slow, (relatively speaking) weak in CC and useless against tanks.


That wouldn't be guardian spam, it would be heavy weapon spam. There is a difference. GW want us to use the basic guys a lot, not take as few of them as possible to unlock the 'good stuff'.

True guardian spam would be 4+ units of 15+. Not 6*5 to allow 6 cheap heavies. The point is to make the troops themselves desireable.

The iconic marine image is the tactical marine blasting things with his assault rifle rocket launcher super gun. But how do most players view a boltermarine? Expendable necessities to qualify for heavy and/or special weapons. It's that mindset GW are trying to change, to make the basic trooper a thing players want to take.

No you can say their chosen path isn't the best, and you'd probably be right, but lowering the number needed to get the stuff people are actually trying to spam is counterproductive to that.





Once that is accomplished, they could please, please, please get rid of the FOC as well. I hate being told what I can bring to a battle - people won't spam heavy tanks if there is some balance in the game - just make sure you get that balance right!

For the FO chart to go, the balance between the choices needs to be seriously revamped. You couldn't have any units that are just plain better but cost more than others(as due to the benefits of force concentration they'd always be preferrable).
GW would seriously need to stick to something like:
Troops: baseline units
FA: Are faster than troops but shoot or fight worse but nothing else.
HS: Shoot better than troops but move or fight worse.
Elites: Rely on specialist skills that help in specialist situations but are hindering in all others.

Example:
Tacticals: shoot and fight ok.
Assault marines: faster, shoot worse, fight the same (not better!)
Devestators: slower (actually, not just effectively due to heavy weapons, for example can't run?), but more heavy weapons (which weigh them down)
Scouts in elites: infiltration skills at the cost of worse armour

Basically the idea and the fact that non troops units are better needs to go, except many people are asking for the troops requirement to be moved because non troops are often just better.

Eldartank
25-05-2011, 01:45
Irritates me too, but I don't see a lot of it in this thread. To which post(s) are you refering?


jt.

I was just making a jab at the word "Scenario's" in the title of this thread. ;)

Str10_hurts
25-05-2011, 08:23
Hey take a look at my signature, those missions are decently balanced for 1500 ish games after lots of playtesting 60-70 games, that is only if you bring enough troops 4-5.

Then I'll type this from under my table:
The rulebook missions are the reason for the entire balance of all the armies. There I said it!

The fact its not dependent on victorypoints. Kill points and objective scoring with only troops creates a far larger oppertunity for tactics/planning to take over. It took me quite some time to realise that the missions wins you battles and not just destroying armies.