PDA

View Full Version : Battle Missions: Best and Worst?



Compel
07-01-2012, 23:05
I'm planning on running a campaign with a heavy focus on doing Battle Missions games.

While I've played a handful of then, I haven't played them all (not a surprise).

So, in the great wisdom of the interweb, are there any scenarios to stay the flip away from, or any that are (gasp!) actually really well designed?

For example, I've heard a few complaints around the place that Ambush is pretty bad? Though, it's kinda the thing that would fit a campaign, I think.

Fawful
08-01-2012, 13:38
I have only played a few of them, but they really throw any sort of balance out of the window most of the time. The thing with battle missions is that they should be used for storytelling and fluffy battles not for competitive play.

Also the mission where the marines are defending an outpost and the enemy can outflank them is pretty bad for ork players who rely on the kustom force field since hq's can't enter the board straight away. This might hamper certain other builds as well.

The key is to look at each mission and design a story around that and then choose the forces. Regular armies can and will fall apart in some of the scenario's.

enygma7
08-01-2012, 17:46
Many of the battle missions are pretty good and as a whole they add some much welcome variety to your games. Some people dismiss all of them outright because a few are obviously unbalanced, which is pretty lazy thinking in my opinion. However, I wouldn't recommend them for groups focused on competetive play (by which I mean tournament). Battle missions isn't aimed at that type of gamer and they typically aren't open to risking new things or changes to the standard game.

Some battle missions are just unbalanced and should be avoided unless you are willing to make extensive modifications, especially any mission where one force deploys within charge range of the other. The necron mission "ambush" and the space marine mission "all round defence" are probably the worst missions in the book.

Your question is difficult to answer with a simple list of good and bad missions. Many of the missions are balanced and fun, but not for certain armies or builds. For example Vanguard is totally fine with marines attacking and tau defending, but not if you make the tau attack. Many of the missions where the two sides have different deployment rules are like this.

Missions where both sides have identical deployment, rules and objectives are usually fine.

The approach we normally take is to roll up a mission randomly and then both players have a read through. If both are happy then game on, if one feels it is unbalanced for any reason they can veto it and a new mission is rolled. Repeat until you get a mission both players feel happy with, or if you can't reach agreement roll a standard mission. For a campaign you might want to select from a group of missions that fit the narrative rather than rolling randomly. After the game it is a good idea to talk it over and see if both players are still happy with the mission for future games.

A few other missions to be wary of: surprise attack (mentioned by the poster above me) and the nid mission infestation. I've played it several times and if you have a weak CC army defending (e.g. guard) and an aggressive army attacking (e.g. nids) it seems biased in favour of the attacker because the attacker gets to deploy very close.