PDA

View Full Version : Battle Mission unfairness?



brightblade
21-07-2010, 11:43
So, the other day I played my buddy at a 2500 point game. I decided to take a veteran heavy, mephiston led, elite, assault force. No tanks, two rhinos only (one for sternguard, one for DC). My mate had necrons, two monoliths, nightbringer, loads of warriors. A tough ruck was on the cards as he is the expert of the gunline and most of our games are me attacking him. It is just the way he likes to play vs my way.

Before this game I had never made him phase out, he is very, very canny. Now we know that Necrons are weaker than most thanks to various rule changes for 5th and their cost levels being .... well... expensive. Still, they can be tough if you know what you are doing.

However, we decided to do a random battle mission from the nice new book and rolled dice to see what we got. The marine mission, surprise assault came up. He set up terrain, fairly I might add, then deployed. He had all his units on apart from the flayed guys but all his units had to deploy more than 6" away from each other, thus denying them the close proximity protection they need. I assaulted onto the board on turn one.

Sternguard shot nightbringer to pieces, vanguard assaulted a squad of warriors, as did my assault squad, mephiston charged wraiths and set about chopping them up, DC set up for a charge on warriors, my DC dread with talons set into a unit of destroyers and then warriors (talons are amazing)....and so on.

Anyway, it was so one sided. Turn three, he phased out. Now, I expected to win the game (only because the Necron codex is so much weaker than the nice shiny BA codex) but I expected losses and I thought it would be tough. The mission gave me turn one charges all over the board with the first turn. Nobody could survive that.

Now the question is has anybody else had this? Are all the missions this biased? Or did we just have a perfect storm situation? The day I bring a totally unbalanced assault list is the day it is perfect for conditions?

Or are BA so much better than Necrons?

Lord Asgul
21-07-2010, 12:18
It sounds to me that a turn 1 assault is pretty unfair. Especially to a gunline list like Necrons.

deacon52
21-07-2010, 12:18
sounds like a perfect storm to me, although ive never lost to a necron player(only played them twice) but he just had a #### load of warriors, and i was playing space wolves with lots of power weapons,powerfists. it was looking even until my guys got close enough to assault. necrons need a little bit of an update to i think

Grimtuff
21-07-2010, 12:29
Or are BA so much better than Necrons?

In other news The Pope discovered to be a Catholic and Bears do actually poo in the woods. ;)

ashc
21-07-2010, 12:32
Many of the battle missions aren't fair.

and there was me thinking it was the other way round Grimtuff ;)

Garven Dreis
21-07-2010, 13:02
Wow, Assaulty BA led by Mephiston curb-stomps Necrons. It's not the fault of the Battle Mission.

Anubis_the_Harlie
21-07-2010, 13:12
The whole point of the battle missions missions (hmm odd wording there) is to a little on the unfair side to provide a fluffy and fun alternative to regular or competitive play. Correct me if I'm wrong, though.

Thylacine
21-07-2010, 13:56
Having played a few missions from the Battle Missions codex I can honestly say they tend to favor one list over another. It almost seems an add-on to Planetstrike which give us a defender v attacker format that is uniquely asymmetric in its narrative style missions.

Zweischneid
21-07-2010, 14:05
Well.

It should be easy to test if the fault is with the missions or the armies: Just replay the exact same game with inverse armies.

brightblade
21-07-2010, 14:55
Well.

It should be easy to test if the fault is with the missions or the armies: Just replay the exact same game with inverse armies.

Now this is a good idea and certainly one we have discussed. Like I said originally, I did expect to win, just because Necrons are so out of date but the nature of it was a surprise to me. It almost made the game unenjoyable and not worth playing. I am fairly sure that it not what was intended when the missions book was released....:shifty:

And hang on what's this about Popes, Catholics, bears and pooing in woods? All these metaphors, as florid as they are, have me a little confused. So.. the Pope is a Necron and Blood Angels poo in the woods? :p

mdauben
21-07-2010, 15:21
It sounds to me that a turn 1 assault is pretty unfair.
I have not played the mission in question, but I have to agree. Any mission or scenario that allows multiple first turn charges is totally broken. There are just too many matchups where first turn charge = autowin. :no:

ObiWan
21-07-2010, 15:30
Now this is a good idea and certainly one we have discussed. Like I said originally, I did expect to win, just because Necrons are so out of date but the nature of it was a surprise to me. It almost made the game unenjoyable and not worth playing. I am fairly sure that it not what was intended when the missions book was released....:shifty:

And hang on what's this about Popes, Catholics, bears and pooing in woods? All these metaphors, as florid as they are, have me a little confused. So.. the Pope is a Necron and Blood Angels poo in the woods? :p


Nah, you got it wrong, Blood Angels are catholic and Necrons poo in the woods :p

Xelloss
21-07-2010, 15:49
Congratulation OP, you discovered that Battle Missions are totally unbalanced\sarcasm

Seriously GW :wtf: ?

Hunger
21-07-2010, 16:14
Uh, yeah some missions give an advantage to particular armies, but who said missions had to be fair and balanced?

BladeWalker
21-07-2010, 16:53
The Surprise Assault mission is broken at that points level for sure. I've played it at 1500 and it still strongly favors an assault army on the attack. At 2500, with the rule of spreading out the army during deployment, there is no way to keep the defenders units out of assault on turn 1 with the lists you guys played.

I think it would be only fair for you to play Ambush with the BA as the defender next. :-)

Brother Loki
21-07-2010, 16:59
Real battles are rarely fair. The battle missions aren't meant to be balanced, they're meant to reflect different scenarios and battlefield conditions.

Sabe
21-07-2010, 17:01
Uh, yeah some missions give an advantage to particular armies, but who said missions had to be fair and balanced?

Exactly, its not like Battle Missions is Fox News.

Mart007
21-07-2010, 17:06
Real battles are rarely fair. The battle missions aren't meant to be balanced, they're meant to reflect different scenarios and battlefield conditions.

exactly

BM is meant to make you think differently on how you use your army... may have been one sided, but then if your used to making a gunline the BM may be a good way to play differently.. granted crons aint great...

There will be a mission in there somewhere that would favour the crons more...

mdauben
21-07-2010, 18:22
Real battles are rarely fair.
This is such a pointless response. :rolleyes:

40K is not a "real battle" or even an attempt to model one. Its a game and a game is supposed to be fun. Its hard see how most people could derive any fun at all from playing a game you have virtually no chance of winning. :(

Thud
21-07-2010, 18:31
Uh, yeah some missions give an advantage to particular armies, but who said missions had to be fair and balanced?

I, for one, do.

Myself and the guys I play with are on a pretty even footing, so most games I play are fairly close and interesting. Giving one of the players a massive advantage which pretty much means an auto-win isn't exactly my idea of fun.

Hunger
21-07-2010, 18:54
I really wish more players would get out of the mindset that everything always has to be fair and balanced for both players - playing missions where one person is bound to defeat the other can be a laugh, and provide a new take on the game. And if you really do feel the need to determine a winner and loser, play it again but swap roles and compare your results.

Try playing a game where you have half the points of the other player. See who can survive longer, or who can sustain the least losses.

Try taking equal sized forces, but give one player defences like those in a Planetstrike game. How about having one player the 'Without Number' special rule on all troops, or on his whole army.

Try playing a mission where you have a single Marbo-type character versus a 2500pt enemy force, with the only objective being to kill the enemy commander. Or a scenario in which you have a single squad whose mission is to escape off your opponent's board edge. In either case, give the small squad or assassin some special rules.

One of the reasons I like Battle Missions and Planetstrike is that they encourage alternative approaches to the game like this.



This is such a pointless response. :rolleyes:

40K is not a "real battle" or even an attempt to model one. Its a game and a game is supposed to be fun. Its hard see how most people could derive any fun at all from playing a game you have virtually no chance of winning. :(

I couldn't disagree more Mdauben. I like to make my games as 'real' as possible*. I dislike the gamey aspects of 40K, and for me everything that moves it further away from being a game and puts it closer to being a realistic battle simulation is a plus.

It probably is very hard to see how a game which is inevitably going to end in a victory for one side can be fun, perhaps the only way to understand it is to just have a go.


*we all know what I mean by real, but thats not the issue being discussed.

brightblade
21-07-2010, 18:57
Congratulation OP, you discovered that Battle Missions are totally unbalanced\sarcasm.

I thank you! :) (takes bow) :p

Oh, I totally get the idea of different points values in games and love scenario fun but in a pick up, random, equal footing, battering ruck of a game I was surprised at the autowin of it all.

Scenarios require a little more planning to make them fun for all. This just seems to be; are you a marine player? Is this a marine mission? Hey, then you win?

Is it the same the other way round? If it had been a necron game would he have paved me? I wonder....:shifty:

EDIT; Oh, and thanks to Obi Wan for clearing up who poos in whose wood. Ta.

Also, I agree with Thud. Ta. :)

Garanaul the Black
21-07-2010, 19:14
Is it the same the other way round? If it had been a necron game would he have paved me? I wonder....:shifty:




Give it a go and let us know what happens.



G

mdauben
21-07-2010, 20:14
- playing missions where one person is bound to defeat the other can be a laugh, and provide a new take on the game.
Perhaps you think so, and if so feel free to play such scenarios. I find a game with a pre-ordained result to be a total waste of time and little or no fun. I would imagine most players feel the same way I do.


Try playing a game where you have half the points of the other player. See who can survive longer, or who can sustain the least losses.
See, there is a difference between games that are not equal, and those that are not balanced. Games where one player outnumbers the other can be lots of fun, if the mission parameters or victory conditions are designed to reflect this and allow both players an equal chance of winning. If you just give one player twice and many points and expect the outnumbered player to enjoy being beaten like a rug 99 times out of 100, you have an odd idea of fun. :eyebrows:


I couldn't disagree more Mdauben. I like to make my games as 'real' as possible*.
Then I would seriously advise you to look into another game system. I've played dozen of game systems over the years, and I find 40K one of the most unrealistic game systems I have ever seen. Its still a fun game, but not at all realistic. :p

Hunger
21-07-2010, 21:27
See, there is a difference between games that are not equal, and those that are not balanced. Games where one player outnumbers the other can be lots of fun, if the mission parameters or victory conditions are designed to reflect this and allow both players an equal chance of winning. If you just give one player twice and many points and expect the outnumbered player to enjoy being beaten like a rug 99 times out of 100, you have an odd idea of fun.

Giving one player half as many points and then adjusting it so he has an equal chance of winning is a new way to spice up a game, but in my previous post I do actually mean playing with unequal chances of victory.

I think that players who play the same dull missions with the same set of victory conditions using perfectly matched forces day in, day out have an odd idea of fun.

And when I say "moving away from 'gamey' toward 'realism'" I mean stuff like actually having a proper objective to the mission, such as killing the enemy commander or breaking through his lines, rather than making a final-turn dash so that you can end up within 3" of an arbitrarily placed marker.

Again, people who would play a wargame and enjoy playing abstract missions seem odd to me - why would anyone who's into this hobby want to play that over something that actually feels like a war simulation? How uninspiring would 'A Bridge Too Far' be if the Allies were fighting for control of some coloured markers on the floor instead of Nijmegen bridge?

chromedog
21-07-2010, 23:40
Unequal points between armies in a mission works if the objectives balance it out.

There were missions like this in previous editions.
Not everything revolves around killpoints. Playing a game where one unit has to get to x point on the table to count as a 'win' (and you are outnumbered 2 to 1) can be fun (call it the "get to da choppa" mission).

Try some of the older missions sometime. Attacker/defender. Attacker has to split his forces into two parts, then randomly determine which part he starts with - the remainder are reserves.

Nothing new here. Battlemissions is simply a way to get GWs customers to BUY what they used to give us as part of the rulebook.

Emperor's Scourge
21-07-2010, 23:41
I have to echo the prevalent opinion here. You rolled an Assault mission while playing an Assault army against...Necrons.

And you're surprised he got wasted?

Next time turn the tables and play the Necron mission if there is one. I don't own Battle Missions yet.

Jackmojo
22-07-2010, 01:01
I love playing unbalanced missions, but I find it more satisfying to pull a draw out of a one-sided engagement then a victory out of a fair one. I almost always volunteer to be the underdog, but I wouldn't want to deny anyone else the pleasure that a truly hard fought battle brings.

Jack

Mart007
22-07-2010, 09:11
BM, is not supposed to be totally for friendly play, it should be avoided at all costs if you want a balanced game. Some people get to fussed over balance anyway to the point they should play the same army with same list and mirrored scenery.

I prefer my games with a little more spice... even in tourny situation

Even says, in the intro feel free to change the rules on the missions and basically that the book is a guide....

shabbadoo
22-07-2010, 10:15
Yeah, we noticed in our last club tournament that the BM scenarios were completely jacked up. I would much rather prefer to play a challenging game than to play a scenario where for all intents and purposes I figuratively took the enemy army and dropped its pants to its ankles, pulled its sweater up over its head, and then proceeded to kick and beat the living snot out of it. Yeah, not exactly a "fun for all" type of game. :p

The Highlander
22-07-2010, 17:47
I really wish more players would get out of the mindset that everything always has to be fair and balanced for both players - playing missions where one person is bound to defeat the other can be a laugh, and provide a new take on the game. And if you really do feel the need to determine a winner and loser, play it again but swap roles and compare your results.

You seem to be confusing the idea of an asymmetric game (where one side has an advantage, but this is balanced by special rules or the victory conditions) with the idea of a balanced game (where both players have a chance of winning based on their army composition, tactics used etc). All missions should be designed to be as fair as possible, the winner should be determined purely buy skill at the game, not an inherent unfairness in the rules.

To take the idea of an unbalanced game to the extreme, how would you like a scenario where you played down the length of the table against a guard army with no scenery, the armies deployed 36£ apart, no outflanking then they get the first turn? Or a scenario where an ork/tyranid/blood angels army is allowed to deploy 12” away from your army and go first? In both cases it doesn’t matter what army you take or how you use it, you are going to lose. Neither of these would make for a fun game.

FabricatorGeneralMike
22-07-2010, 18:08
You seem to be confusing the idea of an asymmetric game (where one side has an advantage, but this is balanced by special rules or the victory conditions) with the idea of a balanced game (where both players have a chance of winning based on their army composition, tactics used etc). All missions should be designed to be as fair as possible, the winner should be determined purely buy skill at the game, not an inherent unfairness in the rules.

To take the idea of an unbalanced game to the extreme, how would you like a scenario where you played down the length of the table against a guard army with no scenery, the armies deployed 36£ apart, no outflanking then they get the first turn? Or a scenario where an ork/tyranid/blood angels army is allowed to deploy 12” away from your army and go first? In both cases it doesn’t matter what army you take or how you use it, you are going to lose. Neither of these would make for a fun game.



No thanks, that sounds like a dull game. But, what if I was to take my sisters againsted my friends World Eaters ? Sounds like a boring game eh? What if they where doing a last stand in their city shrine? What if this was the last stand of St Bonnita who is about to me marytered while holding back the hoards of the arch-traitor. That sounds like a fun game to me. Does it sound fun to you? If it doesn't then its alright. The great thing about this game is what you want to do with it. If you want to change some rules around to make a better game then go for it. As long as both people know what they are getting into.

I don't play at game stores or GW. I only play 40k with a few different people at my place or my friends. When you are going to play random game store kind #125, there has to be some kind of ground rules that everyone agrees on. If you are playing with good friends in informal games then do what-ever the hell you want to. This is why I like 40k so much, plus I remember when Space Marines where cool, not when every other chapter wanted secretly to be Ultramarines... :shifty::wtf:

ashc
22-07-2010, 19:41
I like the occasional 'last stand' scenario, but you have to be prepared and in the mindset for it.

Lamoron
22-07-2010, 20:33
It probably is very hard to see how a game which is inevitably going to end in a victory for one side can be fun, perhaps the only way to understand it is to just have a go. It can be oddly liberating to know you have close to zero chance of winning. I think the most fun I ever had in 40k, was controlling 1000 points of IG and a bunch of automated weapon-platforms, smack in the middle of the table, controlling all objectives.

On my one side was 2000 points of Tyranids, and on the other was 2000 points of angry marines, and both of them had to take my objectives while keeping the other guy away.

I got tied with the marines and we lost to the nids, but it was the most epic "win" ever because nobody (including me), expected me to be anything but a slight bump in the road for two assault armies clashing in the middle.

Anyone opening the BM book should be aware of this, and it really does lack: "WARNING - THESE MISSIONS ARE NOT BALANCED" on the inside of the cover.

/Lamoron

Occulto
23-07-2010, 04:02
You seem to be confusing the idea of an asymmetric game (where one side has an advantage, but this is balanced by special rules or the victory conditions) with the idea of a balanced game (where both players have a chance of winning based on their army composition, tactics used etc). All missions should be designed to be as fair as possible, the winner should be determined purely buy skill at the game, not an inherent unfairness in the rules.

Why says there has to be a "winner" and "loser" at all?

It's the hours of gameplay that truly matter. If a mission produces an interesting and enjoyable game, then who cares who gets to indulge in a few minutes of friendly bragging after the game ends?

Hunger
23-07-2010, 13:01
You seem to be confusing the idea of an asymmetric game (where one side has an advantage, but this is balanced by special rules or the victory conditions) with the idea of a balanced game (where both players have a chance of winning based on their army composition, tactics used etc). All missions should be designed to be as fair as possible, the winner should be determined purely buy skill at the game, not an inherent unfairness in the rules.

*facepalm*

No, I am not confusing 'asymmetry' with 'unbalanced'. Listen carefully - for the third time:



I am actually advocating playing a game where one side has more chance of winning than the other.

I am well aware that many people are struggling to grasp this concept.

I am suggesting you try it anyway. If you don't want to, thats fine - its not up to me to tell you how to enjoy your game - but do not be so quick to dismiss something you have never tried.



Look, never mind. Just do it how you have always done.

jsullivanlaw
23-07-2010, 18:43
Battlemissions was a terrible terrible book. They put hardly any thought into the missions. I remember throwing it across the room when i first read it and quitting 40k for a couple months to play other wargames. It was kind of a last straw shoddy product from GW type of thing. I never have a played a mission from it, the custom missions people i play against come up with are much better. Half the missions in the book are Kill Points. Stupid as all hell, i bought the book to get away from things like kill points. It was even worse when i saw that the armies that do terrible in kill point missions, like Dark Eldar, have 2 of their 3 missions as kill points. The book was the one GW product that i really wanted my money back for.

eriochrome
23-07-2010, 19:07
So you had an army that is know to be weak, especially verses assault attacked by an assault army, in a mission that due to the point size 2500 and I am guessing standard board size forced the weak army to place units within first turn assault range where they would be assaulted before getting to move. The result here should have been obvious before you even started the game.

ReveredChaplainDrake
23-07-2010, 19:44
BM, is not supposed to be totally for friendly play, it should be avoided at all costs if you want a balanced game.
See, this is why Battle Missions is junk. It's not for friendly play because it gives an unfair advantage to certain armies. It's not for competition because it lacks balance. What's it for, then? Well...

Battle Missions does, in fact, serve a purpose. GW was obviously trying to get us to beta test potential 6th edition mission ideas. That explains why so many of the missions are so poorly balanced, haphazardly put together, or otherwise stoned stupid, as well as why there are in excess of a couple dozen different missions. Every time GW does something stupid, that's one more thing that they won't be replicating in the near future. So let your complaints and opinions be heard, everyone. This is the opportunity for the gaming community to give the balance input that we've been sorely waiting to give.

AndrewGPaul
23-07-2010, 20:17
Reverend, I think Mart007 made a typo in the bit you quoted. :)


So let your complaints and opinions be heard, everyone.

Indeed, but don't make the mistake of thinking that moaning about it here will get anything done. By all means, come onto Warseer and grumble about it, but make sure you communicate your issues to GW as well.

ReveredChaplainDrake
23-07-2010, 20:28
Reverend, I think Mart007 made a typo in the bit you quoted. :)
Oh. I thought Mart007's implication was that Battle Missions were supposed to serve the same purpose as Anarchyhammer / Apocalypse: because GW thinks that mindlessly killing models with no scope for tactical objectives is still fun.

Mart007
24-07-2010, 09:13
How did I manage that!!!?

I ment it is purely for friendly play and should be avoided if you want a balanced game...

Move along nothing to see here.... :shifty:

Personally I wouldnt play it every time I wanted a game, but it shakes things up. Winning a game is great, but what makes a game great is the bit in between turn 1 and 5/6/7.... and ok sometimes you get a white wash - its just nice to use differing tactics... esp if you have a specific shooty/CC army as you have to use them out of position as it were and be creative...

I hope that makes sense - my humble apologies.......

azimaith
24-07-2010, 13:19
Battle missions has a lot of opportunities for first turn assaults with very powerful units which can easily turn a game into a curb stomp.

TheOmiTsuki
24-07-2010, 23:51
I think this is much more a social issue then it is a game issue or a issue of GWs.

It was ment to be used in fun and to help people play out events in 40k history as well as play out your own.


For whatever reason people feel the need to always have there be a clear winner and loser.

If you played this game to have fun. Spend sometime with your mates. Build and paint some cool models that you enjoy and be danmed if its "competitive" or not this hoppy would be far more deep interesting and enjoyable. But most people feel the need to have huge egos and try and win at all cost and if something isnt 100% fair its broken but as in 40k and in life **** isnt fair. Learn to deal with it and have some fun for once.

Lamoron
25-07-2010, 20:09
If you played this game to have fun. Spend sometime with your mates. Build and paint some cool models that you enjoy and be danmed if its "competitive" or not this hoppy would be far more deep interesting and enjoyable. But most people feel the need to have huge egos and try and win at all cost and if something isnt 100% fair its broken but as in 40k and in life **** isnt fair. Learn to deal with it and have some fun for once. So because I like to play interesting battles, with my friends, it can't be fair missions? I've played imperial guard through one crappy codex after another, always being underdog (well except for now, but my IG are quite dusty these days), but I really don't need to roll a random mission that totally screws me over.

I do have fun, I have hobbynight every tuesday where we paint and model, and I still would like the missions to be playable and fair.

chamelion 6
25-07-2010, 20:26
This is such a pointless response. :rolleyes:

40K is not a "real battle" or even an attempt to model one. Its a game and a game is supposed to be fun. Its hard see how most people could derive any fun at all from playing a game you have virtually no chance of winning. :(

It's an attempt to model a fantasy battle. And playing wildly unbalanced games, in my experience, is a hell of alot more fun than the sterile and repetative atmosphere of a balanced pitched battle over and over.

You have to define winning in the context of the scenario. It should reward other traits a well balanced army should possess. It's all in how you approach it.

chromedog
26-07-2010, 08:53
I played a Daemons mission yesterday (with eldar - fairly soft eldar at that) with BA subbing in as the Daemons. I managed a draw (which, given the craptacular dice rolling I'm famous for) was an outstanding result for me.

I'm looking forward to playing one of the eldar missions against the same army and returning the favour.

ReveredChaplainDrake
26-07-2010, 14:07
Last weekend, I played the Scorched Earth mission against Ultramarine (defenders), subbing my Tyranids (attackers) for the Chaos Marines, seeing as I already had my 2000 Tyranid list. Funny thing, we had to roll five times to get a mission that looked fair. Scorched Earth actually looked surprisingly more appropriate for Tyranids than CSM because, with half the terrain blocking LoS and half the terrain being Dangerous, it's very fitting with what happens to a planet that's getting Tyrannoformed: either the trees just grow really big and thick, or they out and out try to kill you when you get too close.

Scorched Earth is one of the more fair missions. Given what GW did with Fantasy's forests, I can see something similar, but on a less probable scale, implemented in a future edition. It fixed a lot of TLoS problems, like losing my Zoanthropes or Tervigons to first turn splattering, though it could've also been the case that my opponent's army just wasn't built for it. It would be interesting to see something like the following implemented in a standard mission:

1: flaming (counts as dangerous)
2-5: normal
6: smoldering (blocks LoS)

That said though, the game quickly boiled down to normal everyday Capture & Control Spearhead mission. Terrain became irrelevant very quickly when I got deployment choice and I deployed on the side with the mostly smoldering terrain. I had to charge into dangerous terrain once, and that was to get his Vindicator. Also, I was far luckier than I deserved to be. (Five Termegants charge and kill Sicarius and a TH/SS Terminator. It just went downhill from there.) D6 karma is gonna' come back and bite me square in the...

gitburna
26-07-2010, 14:22
Last game I played was the Necron implacable Advance, subbing in two 1500 point marine armies (salamanders, space wolves) for the necrons and all my tyranids (one force org chart) on the other side. I couldn't outflank, as per the game rules, and had to try and fight my way out of my deployment zone while getting blatted by long fangs and tanks from the other nd of the table, before coming up against grey hunters, termninators, blood claws etc in the middle of the table..
You know what, i never stood a chance, but so fricking what it was a game, I'm quite capable of accepting a defeat without feeling the need to blame it on GW. Despite the beasting (sic), i felt that i gave a good account of myself in a situation which was massively against me.

Carlos
26-07-2010, 15:31
Last game I played was the Necron implacable Advance, subbing in two 1500 point marine armies (salamanders, space wolves) for the necrons and all my tyranids (one force org chart) on the other side. I couldn't outflank, as per the game rules, and had to try and fight my way out of my deployment zone while getting blatted by long fangs and tanks from the other nd of the table, before coming up against grey hunters, termninators, blood claws etc in the middle of the table..
You know what, i never stood a chance, but so fricking what it was a game, I'm quite capable of accepting a defeat without feeling the need to blame it on GW. Despite the beasting, i felt that i gave a good account of myself in a situation which was massively against me.

Win or lose, at least you had fun and thats the most interesting part.

We played the 'all-round defence' mission of 2000/2000 Tau/Guard vs 4000 Chaos defenders and had a great time. Our sit back and shoot plan was undone by G2G Plague marines and thousand sons, although our massed Guardsmen/Battlesuit push in the latter stages put paid to that.

We ran it again @ 5000pts but with the base on one table edge and got massacred thanks to pincer attack land raiders with berzerkers and bloodfeeder lord in alpha strike.

GrogDaTyrant
26-07-2010, 15:47
I actually really like the random Battle Missions table. For me, that has made for some of the most enjoyable 40k games I've had in this edition. Sure it could come up with a curb-stomp mission, but for the most part it forces players to take a harder look at objectives and balancing their army list. It's been fun for me, provided it's randomized. 'Set Games' where it's definite that we're playing 'x' army's mission can be fun as well. I find my warbike army performs best on Eldar, Dark Eldar, and Tau missions, and not so well on any of the Ork ones. Go figure.

massey
26-07-2010, 16:34
As far as the original question, there were multiple forces at work.

1) Necrons are one of the weaker armies in 5th edition.
2) Their specific weaknesses happen to be those things at which Blood Angels excel.
3) The Necron army list was quite weak, taking loads of sub-optimal units with minimal support.
4) The Blood Angel list was very powerful, with lots of elite, hard hitting units.
5) The number of points on the board limited the Necrons' deployment options.
6) The Battle Missions mission being played gives a slight advantage to the attacker.

Those factors working together resulted in a total rout. You basically can't get a more perfect setup for one side to defeat the other. The guys talking about fighting an IG army lengthwise with no terrain and no outflanking have the right idea.

Battle Missions is a useful book, and can lead to some very fun games. But you have to use very different strategies with it. A lot of the standard net lists won't work as well in a Battle Missions game. And that's what I like about it. It throws an element of chaos into the game. Leafblower this. You really have to think about the mission in a different way. Yes, occasionally, there will be a perfect storm of events that will cause one army to just wipe out the other. Now, that happens in regular 40K as well. But overall, I'd say those missions are at least 60/40 balanced for a normal army. The more your army leans towards heavy assault, heavy shooting, or high mobility, the more that number will move. But it's a risk. With the wrong mission roll, that elite Blood Angel army could find itself gunned down and chopped to pieces by those Necrons.

Blackwolf
26-07-2010, 18:04
My thoughts on battlemissions are that the missions are balanced if you play a balanced army. If your army is designed to just function with the main rulebook missions then you will probably have some hard matches, however if you take a more balanced approach to army lists I have not played one mission that I did not feel like I could win.