The BEST part of Valour

[Ben]

The Better Part of Valour.  

The Just Saying podcast @JustPlay-Ritchie talked about this battleplan on their recent episode. 

They think its the worst in the game. I think it's the best.  Obviously a massive disconnect here so i'd like to see some discussion around it. 

Reasons I like it.  

1. The great leveller.  You have to be able to not lose at this.  No ifs, no buts.  If you can get beaten turn 1 then you list is wrong for the event. You need to bring bodies, chaff screens or have a plan to secure one objective all game while threatening others. 

2. You need to be able to attack objectives.  If you can't alpha strike an objective, even 1, then you run the risk of losing.  

I thing the hate comes from not adapting to this battle plan. I thing its great because it forces change

Reasons to hate it.... 

Lay them on me.  

[svnvaldez]

It is one of my favorites as well. I don't feel it leads to non-balanced auto win games which would be my only requirement for hating a battleplan.

[Kramer]

I don’t necessarily think it’s a great battle plan. It’s fine imo. It rewards conservative play too much (at least in my group). It’s interesting though, it’s one of those missions that forces you to split up a bit. 

Hindering armies build for one trick synergy. Was that one of the negatives by chance? I

[SolomonHelsing]

My second tournament I lost this in my last game I think it was.

However it was purely because I forgot despite the bastiladons being huge, they only count as one model (of course) so easily taken off me by varanguard units.

If I had burnt those before the varanguard got close enough, I would have likely won, I held my third objective all game because even archaeon and the remaining varanguard couldn't shift a saurus guard fortress around the eternity warden and slann on my last objective and I'd used my teleport on a unit that was able to capitalise on his very weak defences on one of his objectives. 

I lost purely because of bad beginners play, not because my army couldn't play that scenario if a more experienced player had used it. 

I think there should be some that don't just allow the same old builds to always get what they want from games, I think this is one of them. 

[NemoVonUtopia]

I personally dont like it but that is mainly because I tend to make lists that want to stay clumped up, have a low model count that I feel like I cannot protect my objectives and threaten theirs, or play a slow army with little chance of getting their objectives. 

I wouldn't say that it is an inherently bad battleplan since it is mostly my ignorance and unwillingness to change my army theme that makes me lose it everytime.

For example the last few times i played it were with artillery focused chaos dwarfs, a tiny khorne list with Skalok, and I'll be taking a troggoth list the next tournament so I haven't had the model count to do well.

[Somanlius]

I love this battleplan. It has unique scoring mechanisms and forces you not to "clump".  It requires versatility in your army and I love that. Really the only battleplan I dislike is Places of Arcane Power because I play KO with no battalions and Khorne. 

[Charles]

7 hours ago, Somanlius said:

I love this battleplan. It has unique scoring mechanisms and forces you not to "clump".  It requires versatility in your army and I love that. Really the only battleplan I dislike is Places of Arcane Power because I play KO with no battalions and Khorne. 

I agree with this 100% I see no reasons to dislike the better part of valour it is certainly one of the best battle plans. 

Places of Arcane power is the worst one because it’s the only battle plan that is an auto loose for certain factions. Kharadron Overlords & Khorne both have over costed battalions so struggle to get extra artefacts, and don’t have any access to Wizards and the hero’s they do have don’t have invulnerable saves/ignores. If you play an army with even one shooting unit it’s immediately game over every time.

[Nos]

Broadly speaking I think models numbers claiming objectives is dumb. I’m not above using Grpyhhounds to claim things for the win, but the idea in abstract that Khorne fled the field in defeat because a dog was on a hill, instead of nothing, is pretty immersion breaking. 

Not saying wounds is best either but something that best simulates circumstance. If I have two liberators and three Grots within 6 inches the idea that the Grots have the upper hand in that situation is farcical.

Outwith that broad reservation about how objectives work, I like Better Part of Valour so long as it dosent come down to such silliness.

[S133arcanite]

Could someone explain The Better Part of Valor?

[Kamose]

I truly thought this was a poll on our feelings towards hit-and-run and guerilla tactics in warfare. 😐

[Skreech Verminking]

I never really played the battleplan, but that’s because I usually let the dice chose.

But from an understanding it seems to be very interesting and fun.

Although I guess armies like Beastclaw raiders will probably not like it too much.

[SwampHeart]

Can't stand it - I get the idea that it can create these fun 'if you can hold out you can win!' moments but it never does. The game is usually over by turn 2 - the only question is if both players understand it or not. Scorched Earth was bad in 1.0 and it was changed to be a better scenario by not allowing for burning on turn 1. I see no reason BPoV shouldn't have the same mechanic. 

The issue is BPoV doesn't actually encourage new or diverse builds. It just encourages the same kinds of builds we're used to see (lots of fast, alpha strike, alternate deployment style armies). I get that scenarios should be used to privilege certain builds and types of units, but BPoV doesn't do that. I've played qhat I consider to be a lot of AoS and observed even more - I can count on one hand how many times it wasn't over by turn 2. I play lists that can deal with it because its being shoe horned into nearly every 2 day I attend but I don't enjoy it. Not especially given that there are about 14 other scenarios that I consider better than it. 

[chord]

I like it  I really dislike blob armies and this makes for a more tactical game

[SwampHeart]

Just now, chord said:

I like it  I really dislike blob armies and this makes for a more tactical game

Does it though? It just encourages you to put your blobs in 3 distinct spots. I mean if you can burn 1 of your opponents objectives on turn one the game is basically over assuming you don't make any brain dead mistakes. 

[chord]

1 minute ago, SwampHeart said:

Does it though? It just encourages you to put your blobs in 3 distinct spots. I mean if you can burn 1 of your opponents objectives on turn one the game is basically over assuming you don't make any brain dead mistakes. 

3 Blobs > 1 Blob

[SwampHeart]

Just now, chord said:

3 Blobs > 1 Blob

I guess - I never see blobhammer anyway. Most games of AoS I both play and watch have some very distinct sections of the board with discrete pieces involved in each one. I never really saw the classic 'mash in the middle' thing that people levy'd against AoS. 

[Lucentia]

I'm not a big fan of BPoV, though mostly this is my own problem cos I'm terrible at running the maths in my head for 'If I don't burn X objectives on this turn and my opponent does Y then I'll be out of the game,' or similar mental maths, the different scoring bands are just awkward enough that I can't get them straight in my head without really thinking about it!  Probably I just need to play the battleplan more!

I think there's the core of a good battleplan in there,  and it's better than the random scoring ones, but for me it needs a little tweaking before I can put it down as a 100% enjoyable game experience I think.

[JustPlay-Ritchie]

For anyone who have never listened a quick summary about this mission in a matched play tournament setting.

I think its terrible in tournament play because in match ups that are uneven (I think many armies can not play it well and some are just far to good at it) it means quick games that are far to one sided and generally promotes "feel bads" in lots of situations. And as a tournament regular I see this far to often, a glance around the hall early into the round shows how many games are over already.

Also to be blunt good players also crush bad players on this once again for quick easy victories that can leave a bad taste. This hobby is great and lots of people go to events for many reasons not just winning  other missions suit everyone better in the randomness that is swiss with a inadequate number of rounds.

When we have so many other missions we can play why choose this one?

So on the flip side I have had in balanced match ups between evenly matched players witnessed and took part in some incredible games with lots of thinking about the mission, honestly some great ones but I don't think that out ways the above.

There is a interesting development coming up which I am keen to hear about or hopefully take part in. Sheffield Slaughter is running this in R5 in Hysh I wont elaborate much but think about that mission in R5 with Hysh after 4 rounds of swiss that has done its best to evenly match players! 

[Inquisitorsz]

8 hours ago, SwampHeart said:

Does it though? It just encourages you to put your blobs in 3 distinct spots. I mean if you can burn 1 of your opponents objectives on turn one the game is basically over assuming you don't make any brain dead mistakes. 

It's much better for spreading out than Knife to the Heart.   
Trying to dislodge constantly refreshing undead units next to graveyards from the single objective that you need to claim to win is super boring. That one always seems to end in a draw (therefore minor wins/loss) or the undead player is able to smash whatever blob you left on your objective.  

That mission is all about blobs. 
I find BPoV spreads things around a bit, often fast armies will burn 2 out of 3 on the first turn then come at you, but that gives you options now. You can also burn then everyone fights over 2 objectives, or you can try to hold out and race ahead on points. 

There's probably better battleplans out there but I like this one much more than Knife to the Heart. 

[AaronWilson]

I think it's a really poor scenario, with the way it's designed. 

Armies that alpha hard and go first have such a massive advantage it can lead to non games. Partly due to how close the objective markers are to the deployment (meaning a good charge can mean you can get more models then the opponent on it from deployment). Also partly because if you can pin a opponent into there deployment with a solid alpha and just burn one of theres, it's another non game.

It CAN lead to some good games, I've also won in around 20 minutes by teleporting 90% of my army turn one and burning all 6 objectives as Sylvaneth. I think if you're going to play BPoV why not play Scorched Earth, it's better "balanced" version of the scenario. 

 

[SwampHeart]

8 hours ago, Inquisitorsz said:

It's much better for spreading out than Knife to the Heart.   
Trying to dislodge constantly refreshing undead units next to graveyards from the single objective that you need to claim to win is super boring. That one always seems to end in a draw (therefore minor wins/loss) or the undead player is able to smash whatever blob you left on your objective.  

That mission is all about blobs. 
I find BPoV spreads things around a bit, often fast armies will burn 2 out of 3 on the first turn then come at you, but that gives you options now. You can also burn then everyone fights over 2 objectives, or you can try to hold out and race ahead on points. 

There's probably better battleplans out there but I like this one much more than Knife to the Heart. 

Knife to the Heart is one of the few scenarios that is worse than BPoV. So yeah Valor is better than Knife but that's not saying much at all. 

[chord]

8 hours ago, Inquisitorsz said:

Trying to dislodge constantly refreshing undead units next to graveyards from the single objective that you need to claim to win is super boring. 

Oh those graveyards are so unfun to play against.