Scorched Earth battleplan

[RuneBrush]

2 minutes ago, DeadlySarcasm said:

So would a change to "no turn 1 burning" have changed the outcome or affected the result of your game? From your (admittedly very brief) rundown, it doesn't sound like it would have done as he was only contesting with single models.

The specific issue with this battleplan is certain armies abilities to push 20/40/60+ models in your face turn 1, outnumber/kill a tonne of stuff off, and burn 2 or 3 of your objectives, even if you have all 3 objectives covered.

It's more that if you get your opponent in your face turn 1 it's not possible to cover an objective as it's placed along your deployment line.

[DeadlySarcasm]

3 minutes ago, RuneBrush said:

It's more that if you get your opponent in your face turn 1 it's not possible to cover an objective as it's placed along your deployment line.

Yes of course, however they are not able to burn/deny you with a single model (assuming you have models on the objective). I agree that not being able to screen your objectives in the deployment of your army is frustrating.

My vote in the above poll was for both the stopping of the T1 charge, and the moving back of objectives

[Cerlin]

I do feel that low model count armies will suffer for this year, but that means they need to bring horde counters.

The problem with moving the objectives back is that it will reward campy and shooty armies. While those happen to be two of my armies, I want it to be fun for the melee and speed armies. 

I am not sure that shooting armies need another buff. I think this scenario encourages melee chaff, which you didnt need to take before. I think that is an interesting new consideration.

[Gotrek]

I'm not sure this is really all that different than what many armies could accomplish with border war or how certain armies/lists were kind of boned in 3 places of power. I feel like its more of an adaptation thing than a bent thing. I havent had a chance to play through all the new scenarios but a maxed murder host is going to be seriously crippled in scenarios where heros/monsters matter because of how much they have to invest in that battalion.

[Gaz Taylor]

I voted for No Changes needed. The reason I did this was because the scenario is still very new and it will take time to get used to it, as well as I think people will need to change their lists. The updates in The Generals Handbook 2017 mean that it's almost a brand new game, so it will take players time to work out what is good and what isn't. I understand why a lot of players are upset with the scenario, especially with things like the Murderhost, but I think in a few months everybody will have adapted and moved onto the next thing.  

[heywoah_twitch]

Is it okay to lose before you get to act?

In a game like this, with 10 minutes or more of pregame and setting up models, of course not. In competitive mtg sure, I'll reshuffle for game two and try to open on a force of will. 

[Rhellion]

4 hours ago, heywoah_twitch said:

Is it okay to lose before you get to act?

In a game like this, with 10 minutes or more of pregame and setting up models, of course not. In competitive mtg sure, I'll reshuffle for game two and try to open on a force of will. 

It was possible in the previous editions' Blood and Glory if you did not bring enough banners... meaning you did not correctly prepare your army list for the scenario.

[someone2040]

10 hours ago, Rhellion said:

It was possible in the previous editions' Blood and Glory if you did not bring enough banners... meaning you did not correctly prepare your army list for the scenario.

Old Blood and Glory is a completely different issue and it's a bit silly to make such a comparison.

All armies had access to banners in 8th edition. If you purposely chose to bring a list with no banners or very few banners, that was your risk and is essentially poor list design.

Not all armies in the game have access to units which can move before the game begins to block turn 1 Murderhost charges. Many armies also can't 1 drop or it is very inefficient to do so (and ultimately, comes down to a dice roll to determine who deploys first). If every army in the game had something in it's toolbox to block a Murderhost, then maybe you'd have a point that people didn't correctly prepare their army list for the scenario.

 

Ultimately, if I might be so bold to predict. If the scenario isn't amended, unless Murderhost becomes the most common army to face people will just ignore it.

If you need a specific counter that isn't all around useful to beat 1 specific army in 1 specific scenario, then people will just accept fate. If they come up against Murderhost in that scenario, then they accept it wasn't to be and take the loss. Otherwise their army is overall better off for not bringing inefficient units. 

 

But overall, between equal players, no game should be over before both players have an opportunity to play their turns.

[Gotrek]

20 minutes ago, someone2040 said:

Old Blood and Glory is a completely different issue and it's a bit silly to make such a comparison.

All armies had access to banners in 8th edition. If you purposely chose to bring a list with no banners or very few banners, that was your risk and is essentially poor list design.

Not all armies in the game have access to units which can move before the game begins to block turn 1 Murderhost charges. Many armies also can't 1 drop or it is very inefficient to do so (and ultimately, comes down to a dice roll to determine who deploys first). If every army in the game had something in it's toolbox to block a Murderhost, then maybe you'd have a point that people didn't correctly prepare their army list for the scenario.

 

Ultimately, if I might be so bold to predict. If the scenario isn't amended, unless Murderhost becomes the most common army to face people will just ignore it.

If you need a specific counter that isn't all around useful to beat 1 specific army in 1 specific scenario, then people will just accept fate. If they come up against Murderhost in that scenario, then they accept it wasn't to be and take the loss. Otherwise their army is overall better off for not bringing inefficient units. 

 

But overall, between equal players, no game should be over before both players have an opportunity to play their turns.

1) Everyone DOES have access to something that can block murderhost charges. Everyone has the ability to take hordes via grand alliance or allies to body block the objectives. 

2) dropping last is NOT that big of a deal. You can read what your opponents plan is and counter deploy so you get to choose the fights you want. Not as useful against teleporters but you can then use your extra drops to zone out their teleports, so that you can still dictate where you can be engaged at.

3) honestly, its still feeling like border wars and 3 places of power to me.  Its nothing you cant adapt to. But maybe that's just my deathrattle privilege showing, i can drop a 40 man block on each objective and launch my big guns into their backfield to burn their objectives.

 

[Gaz Taylor]

6 hours ago, someone2040 said:

Ultimately, if I might be so bold to predict. If the scenario isn't amended, unless Murderhost becomes the most common army to face people will just ignore it.

If you need a specific counter that isn't all around useful to beat 1 specific army in 1 specific scenario, then people will just accept fate. If they come up against Murderhost in that scenario, then they accept it wasn't to be and take the loss. Otherwise their army is overall better off for not bringing inefficient units. 

I think if you look at things in just a vacuum, then yes this would happen. But we all know GW have more releases coming out and the top players will work out ways to get round this 'issue' with the scenario and some armies.

I think it's far too early to be worrying about this and we should at least get another three months of playing in before we start jumping to conclusion that this is the worst thing ever for the game. I think by then we will see some new list doing the rounds. Personally I think it will be some Seraphon filth