Meeting Engagements

[MortalRealmMike]

Hello all.  We are going to try the rules for meeting engagements this Friday during our weekly game.   We usually play smaller games... 1k to 1500.  I play Blades of khorne and am really excited for this new format.  The first thing that jumped out at me was the table size.  Both armies should be clashing in no time at all, and Khorne cares not where the blood flows....  I'll give my impressions of how the game went after.  Sorry not more to add for now... but really looking forward to this!!!

[Kramer]

21 hours ago, MortalRealmMike said:

Hello all.  We are going to try the rules for meeting engagements this Friday during our weekly game.   We usually play smaller games... 1k to 1500.  I play Blades of khorne and am really excited for this new format.  The first thing that jumped out at me was the table size.  Both armies should be clashing in no time at all, and Khorne cares not where the blood flows....  I'll give my impressions of how the game went after.  Sorry not more to add for now... but really looking forward to this!!!

Let us know! Always good to know. 

[Not-not-kenny]

I'm really looking forward to trying out meeting engagement on my 3x3' board I have at home, probably gonna mix it with the new cityfight rules for good measure since the terrain I have doesn't have to be spread out over a full 6x4' (obviously not gonna use the silly terrain placement rules)

[Televiper11]

I'm playing in a ME tourney on Sunday. Will report back.

[soak314]

I've gotten a couple games in! Running gloompsite. first game vs FeC, second game vs BcR. Both games using the first central point battleplan, which follows standard deployment order (Spearhead, Main Body, Rearguard). Worth noting that the gitz *cannot* legally deploy their loonshrine in this battleplan.

Vs FeC:
We ran this to see how big of an impact the summoning would have. Not much in this game's case because he didn't have an archregent, and could only call in horrors with his bat. The horrors were heavily limited in their deployment, and ended up getting screened by fanatics up until turn 4.

Consider that to have the free summon the FeC boss has to hang back a good ways to sit on his murderchair. That's a luxury you will likely will not be able to afford given how the faction synergises around your abhorrent.

Speaking of the terrorgheist itself, it was run as Blisterskin so it had pretty terrifying board coverage. He botched a lot of rolls and couldn't get the turn 2 charge. Turn 3 onwards the terrorgheist deleted a full unit a turn, instagibbing my bounders before they could even move and eating up my loonboss and fungoid in a single attack roll.  He was still very limited in what he could and could not charge into, because I was running a ton of bodies and easily zoning out where he could land. 

This game ended in a dead draw, with my grots taking big points early on via objectives, but losing steam in the end as the big bat ran roughshod through my flanks.

Vs BcR:
Started off strong with my fanatics on a point supported by 20 grots and a madcap. He tried to charge either side of the fanatic line, but rolled really badly and ended up with a pair of ogors surrounded by the sporesplattas. With help from the madcap's moonface mommet, the fanatics easily took out the one unit of mournfang and I took a juicy 5 points right there.

Turn 2 starts and in comes the stonehorn sent right into my grot blob, which he promptly wipes off the board despite the -1 to hit from the netters.

He brings out a cheeky 2 unit squad of frostsabres, and successfully splits the fanatic attacks with a two pronged charge with his remaining mournfang. They weather the Fights First and lose all of one frostsaber, and proceed to wipe the fanatics. Turn 2 sees five points to him, because my main body has fudged their charge rolls and have failed to get onto the point.

His Rearguard Yhetees are very cool because they come in, sprint up onto the point, and can pile in 6 inches into the fray while contributing their 6 bodies to the pointgrab.

From there it's pretty much his big boss stomping on my army, though I do manage to get some bodies on the point. I also whittle down his frostlord on stonehorn with a good cast of the pendulum (2d6 guaranteed! though in this case the would-be 11 wounds was cut in half, owch). I score enough to force him into a minor victory.

Loss for me here, but I was more happy to see the BCR be legitimately, strategically threatening.     

***

I've yet to try the alternate deployment order battleplans, but in a tourney setting in particular those will really shake things up. I had a good gut feeling about this ruleset, and it may just be the novelty or the snappiness of the rules but this is the most cerebral AoS I've played. Almost like I'm playing Total War!

[pseudonyme]

1 hour ago, soak314 said:

I've gotten a couple games in! Running gloompsite. first game vs FeC, second game vs BcR. Both games using the first central point battleplan, which follows standard deployment order (Spearhead, Main Body, Rearguard). Worth noting that the gitz *cannot* legally deploy their loonshrine in this battleplan.

Vs FeC:
We ran this to see how big of an impact the summoning would have. Not much in this game's case because he didn't have an archregent, and could only call in horrors with his bat. The horrors were heavily limited in their deployment, and ended up getting screened by fanatics up until turn 4.

Consider that to have the free summon the FeC boss has to hang back a good ways to sit on his murderchair. That's a luxury you will likely will not be able to afford given how the faction synergises around your abhorrent.

Speaking of the terrorgheist itself, it was run as Blisterskin so it had pretty terrifying board coverage. He botched a lot of rolls and couldn't get the turn 2 charge. Turn 3 onwards the terrorgheist deleted a full unit a turn, instagibbing my bounders before they could even move and eating up my loonboss and fungoid in a single attack roll.  He was still very limited in what he could and could not charge into, because I was running a ton of bodies and easily zoning out where he could land. 

This game ended in a dead draw, with my grots taking big points early on via objectives, but losing steam in the end as the big bat ran roughshod through my flanks.

Vs BcR:
Started off strong with my fanatics on a point supported by 20 grots and a madcap. He tried to charge either side of the fanatic line, but rolled really badly and ended up with a pair of ogors surrounded by the sporesplattas. With help from the madcap's moonface mommet, the fanatics easily took out the one unit of mournfang and I took a juicy 5 points right there.

Turn 2 starts and in comes the stonehorn sent right into my grot blob, which he promptly wipes off the board despite the -1 to hit from the netters.

He brings out a cheeky 2 unit squad of frostsabres, and successfully splits the fanatic attacks with a two pronged charge with his remaining mournfang. They weather the Fights First and lose all of one frostsaber, and proceed to wipe the fanatics. Turn 2 sees five points to him, because my main body has fudged their charge rolls and have failed to get onto the point.

His Rearguard Yhetees are very cool because they come in, sprint up onto the point, and can pile in 6 inches into the fray while contributing their 6 bodies to the pointgrab.

From there it's pretty much his big boss stomping on my army, though I do manage to get some bodies on the point. I also whittle down his frostlord on stonehorn with a good cast of the pendulum (2d6 guaranteed! though in this case the would-be 11 wounds was cut in half, owch). I score enough to force him into a minor victory.

Loss for me here, but I was more happy to see the BCR be legitimately, strategically threatening.     

***

I've yet to try the alternate deployment order battleplans, but in a tourney setting in particular those will really shake things up. I had a good gut feeling about this ruleset, and it may just be the novelty or the snappiness of the rules but this is the most cerebral AoS I've played. Almost like I'm playing Total War!

Thanks mate, sounds as exciting as I was hoping.

I heard lots of people complaining without having played yet, about the inbalance of big monsters/heroes like Morathi and the likes. What's your intuition about that ?

Also, would an archregent and his summoning would have changed the game significantly ?

[soak314]

3 hours ago, pseudonyme said:

Thanks mate, sounds as exciting as I was hoping.

I heard lots of people complaining without having played yet, about the inbalance of big monsters/heroes like Morathi and the likes. What's your intuition about that ?

Also, would an archregent and his summoning would have changed the game significantly ?

I purposefully brought an infantry only list to take on the BcR Stonehorn and FeC Terrorgheist to get a feel for the behemoth issue.

In the case of the tgheist, I feel he would have cleanly won that match if he had not fudged the initial charge on turn 2, but I also had some clumsy positioning in play with my stacks of squigs in the main body. It was the same with the BcR match as I brought the fanatics and grots up to try and get more of them on the point, instead of parking the bare minimum of what I needed within the radius to force a more difficult charge.  Basically, the behemoths are nasty. You're likely not taking one down if you field a hordey list.  But they're just one model,  simple to screen given the cramped battlefield, and they only have so many moves to make.

I've yet to run a battleplan that has a behemoth strutting out turn 1, which WILL be the case for a fair bit of them, but I'm looking to remedy that in the coming weeks. 

As for the summoning: FeC In most cases get an easy flank as summons aren't limited by the deep strike rule stopping reserves from deploying near opponent edges. Would an archregent using his turn 1 to call in 20 ghouls on my flank have made a difference? Likely, yep. Two archregents calling in two stacks of 20 ghouls would be even more problematic. Your list being two archregents, a bat, and a bunch of ghouls will be a pretty strong way to approach this mode. I'd have to see it in action, of course, as the opposing player could easily predict this strategy and set their screens up appropriately.

All my talk about flanking is really interesting now that I think about it. In regular AoS it didn't really feel like something you'd think about, but here, with the tiny unit sizes, having a ten stack conga line pincered on either end likely means they won't do much anything in the combat phase. And believe me you'll have a lot of those given the 3 inch deployment zone paired with the mad dash to get onto points.

 

[pseudonyme]

As the rules are written, I don't think you can summon à doubled sized unit turn 1 (ok, it will be turn 2, but still).

Also, as far as I remember, there is only 1 scénario where you can field à behemoth turn 1. Not saying there isn't à problèm, I think there should be à cap to be defined.

Thanks for the feedback

[soak314]

26 minutes ago, pseudonyme said:

As the rules are written, I don't think you can summon à doubled sized unit turn 1 (ok, it will be turn 2, but still).

 

Oh no summoning is explicitly exempt from the standard contingent rules.

"Any new unit you add to your army during the battle - e.g. units that can be summoned - are not considered to be part of any contingent. Follow the normal setup rules for that unit (they do not have to be setup within 3" of any arrival edge)."

This goes for ghosts or grots getting brought back, too.

This is a very pointed ruling with its own segment in the book, so I can only assume it's been playtested to be kosher. I'll definitely hit some chaos, seraphon and FeC players up to see just how overwhelming it can get.

[JackStreicher]

I played a meeting engagement battle yesterday. Dispossessed vs Blades of Khorne. I let him win but it was pretty equal concerning powerlevel (40“ by 48“ board, more scenery than the rules tell you to use)

[janenglund]

I'm confused how Stormcast's SCIONS OF THE STORM battle trait is supposed to work in a meeting engagement.

If I read the rules; "Instead of setting up a STORMCAST ETERNAL unit on the battlefield, you can place it to one side and say that it is set up in the Celestial Realm as a reserve unit." I would do the following:

At the start on the game I set up one unit of Prosecutors and I set up one unit of Sequitors to the Celestial Realm, after my first the movement phase I can descent from the Celestial Realm with my Sequitors where-ever I want following the normal rules. 

At the end of the first turn I would set up Lord-Arcanum and set up another unit of Sequitors to the Celestial Realm.

During my second turn I would bring down the Sequitors and at the end of the turn I could set up one unit of Evocators to the battlefield and set up another unit of Evocators to the Celestial Realm.

 

Is this how it is supposed to work?

[soak314]

36 minutes ago, janenglund said:

I'm confused how Stormcast's SCIONS OF THE STORM battle trait is supposed to work in a meeting engagement.

If I read the rules; "Instead of setting up a STORMCAST ETERNAL unit on the battlefield, you can place it to one side and say that it is set up in the Celestial Realm as a reserve unit." I would do the following:

At the start on the game I set up one unit of Prosecutors and I set up one unit of Sequitors to the Celestial Realm, after my first the movement phase I can descent from the Celestial Realm with my Sequitors where-ever I want following the normal rules. 

At the end of the first turn I would set up Lord-Arcanum and set up another unit of Sequitors to the Celestial Realm.

During my second turn I would bring down the Sequitors and at the end of the turn I could set up one unit of Evocators to the battlefield and set up another unit of Evocators to the Celestial Realm.

 

Is this how it is supposed to work?

If the reserve unit is said to be set up 'on the first turn of battle', then it can only be setup to deep strike if its contingent comes out on the first turn. 

Reading through the SCE rules you posted, I'd say your guys can be reserves at the start of their end-turn setup (no specified 'on the first turn of battle').

However, they're now subject to the new Deadly Territory rule stopping them from deploying within 9" of an opponent's board edge. 

 

[Zamik]

I was making a Meeting Engagement list on the Warhammer Community Warscroll Builder, and for some reason it won't let me take Prosecutors in the Main Body of the army--the only dropdown options are Spearhead and Rearguard. Has anyone else run into units that can't be put into a specific contingent even if there is an available slot for their role?

[Zamik]

3 minutes ago, Zamik said:

I was making a Meeting Engagement list on the Warhammer Community Warscroll Builder, and for some reason it won't let me take Prosecutors in the Main Body of the army--the only dropdown options are Spearhead and Rearguard. Has anyone else run into units that can't be put into a specific contingent even if there is an available slot for their role?

The Warscroll Builder has no room for Other units in the Main Contigent, though the chart in the GHB lists Other units at 0+ in the Main Body.

[RuneBrush]

Your best bet would be to let @warscrollBuilder know (best bet is via Twitter).  This is a pretty new addition to the builder (only went live today) so am sure he's getting quite a bit of feedback 🙂

[scrollbuilderdude]

32 minutes ago, Zamik said:

The Warscroll Builder has no room for Other units in the Main Contigent, though the chart in the GHB lists Other units at 0+ in the Main Body.

This is an error on my part. I'll get this resolved as quickly as possible.

[tripchimeras]

Realized I posted my meeting engagement thoughts in the general handbook big thread when I meant to post them here:

Quote

GHB meeting engagement thoughts after getting 2 meeting engagement games in this weekend:

The Good: Way more enjoyable then a 1k pitched battle game.  Both were a ton of fun, and I think this is going to be a favourite for "beer and pretzel" nights.  It was a nice change of pace and should give some variety when you want a quicker game, keep things fun as you are still building up an army, and for getting some play in for your fluffier units that may actually live long enough to do something.  Because of the tiered rollout and how things get deployed it also ensures the games last most of the battle.  Both of our games were called before the end, but one lasted till halfway through turn 4 before we called it which at 1k pt level is a record for my group (though in both cases we knew which way the wind was blowing very early on) lol.

The Bad: GW calling this a tournament playstyle or using the word competitive in any way shape or form is an extreme mistake.  This is a beer and pretzel playstyle through and through.  Sure I would totally play a 3 game tourney of this at a local shop, but it would be more appropriate to call it an "event" then a tourney.  It is just not competitively viable at all.  The balance issues we are accustomed to seeing in 1k are very much still present, and the format if anything actually opens up some new problems I think.  There are definitely factions that just do not have very viable roll-out strategies for the tiered approach from the games my friends have had so far.  

Overall the game type is a net positive for the hobby.  I am going to be way more excited to play low pt games then I was before and I think this is a fantastic intro level to the hobby for new players.  Luck is a much larger factor in meeting engagements then I think it is normally, and the tiered approach provides the illusion of a closely fought competitive game even when a route is actually in progress.  This is going to be great for new players, and for groups with a wide range of competitive levels I think a great player pitted against a new one will allow both to have fun in this setting while in a normal pitched battle it would all basically be over after turn 1.  Competitively and balance wise however, I think meeting engagement is a mess from my initial experiences.   That same increased luck factor that was a bonus to the casual play, is going to make competitive play more frustrating and less rewarding.  I also think balance is if anything worse then it is at basic 1k with high movement models/armies even stronger then they were before as an example. 

Overall, I am still really frustrated GW billed this as a competitive/tourney experience. while simultaneously pleased with it as a casual game mode at the same time.  I get why GW advertised it how they did, and its a lot of fun but it is just not what they advertised.

 

[soak314]

5 hours ago, tripchimeras said:

Realized I posted my meeting engagement thoughts in the general handbook big thread when I meant to post them here:

If you play the event as they recommend, and run the one list through five of the battleplans with full realm and scenery rules on, I think it'll actually make for a better competitive experience than you give it credit for. The mixed up deployments will make it so a list that's excellent on one battleplan will behave completely differently on one of the others. And that's totally fine, because you're playing five games with a considerable point gap to close to get those major victories. 

I think the design goal here is to disempower the first turn and the list building stages, to give the first turns of movement, and the way you move and line up your ranks to engage with the enemy some actual impact. It's less about who can bring the more drop-efficient list with the best mortal wound output, more about which list (and player) can better adapt to a wildly changing battlefield.

But yeah I do also think high movement armies will have a pretty big leg up just because they can sit on the point turn one unmolested.

Overall I'd need a dozen more games in with people actively tryharding the system to get a real good feel of it. But as of now, the fact that it evens out the playing field and lets a book as old as BCR be threatening is massive.  

 

[tripchimeras]

15 hours ago, soak314 said:

If you play the event as they recommend, and run the one list through five of the battleplans with full realm and scenery rules on, I think it'll actually make for a better competitive experience than you give it credit for. The mixed up deployments will make it so a list that's excellent on one battleplan will behave completely differently on one of the others. And that's totally fine, because you're playing five games with a considerable point gap to close to get those major victories. 

I think the design goal here is to disempower the first turn and the list building stages, to give the first turns of movement, and the way you move and line up your ranks to engage with the enemy some actual impact. It's less about who can bring the more drop-efficient list with the best mortal wound output, more about which list (and player) can better adapt to a wildly changing battlefield.

But yeah I do also think high movement armies will have a pretty big leg up just because they can sit on the point turn one unmolested.

Overall I'd need a dozen more games in with people actively tryharding the system to get a real good feel of it. But as of now, the fact that it evens out the playing field and lets a book as old as BCR be threatening is massive.  

 

I agree its going to be a while until we can make definitive statements, but I really think you are over emphasizing the "leveling" effect it is going to have on lists from the small sample size I've played and watched my friends play.  The meta has changed some with the rule change, but for the most part it serves to strengthen what is already at or near the top of the meta and I don't think it has been levelled much off at all.  Movement is so incredibly important in this playstyle, and just because you can't turn 1 alpha, doesn't mean you can't turn 2 alpha strike with just as much efficiency realistically.  In fact it is more efficient, because most of the strategies that can be used to counter or reduce the effectiveness of alpha are significantly more difficult in 1000 pts then they are in 2000 and this is only agrevated by the tiered deployment.  Only good way to protect something from an alpha now is to hold it back for third wave, and at that point you are potentially significantly reducing the effectiveness of that thing.  The fact that multiple of the scenarios put emphasis on doing wounds, combined with the tiered drop, doubles down on high movement and alpha style units even more.  The tiered approach also limits your ability to plan for double turns, and screen vulnerable units.

There are no situations in which realm rules are ever going to make anything more balanced.  Maybe, more random, but that's about it.  The battle-plans help a bit, but unlike in pitched battle several of them put a heavy focus on wounds dealt, which actually ends up de-emphasizes the need to hold the primary objectives as much.

The changes in meta are going to be mostly on marginal units that aren't OP to begin with from what I can tell.  Speaking as a Deepkin player, Eels are even better in this then they are in normal pitched, perhaps counter intuitively.  They are so very fast, and at the low point level there is just very little answer for them.  This same aggravation of already OP units I can see occurring for the most part across the board.    I agree it is early yet, but I think the idea that meeting engagement is going to be at all competitively balanced is wishful thinking, and the games I have seen and played so far have only served to reinforce this idea in my mind.

Again though those games were a blast, and the format allowed for most of the turns to get played even with the extreme unbalance present in both of my games.  The illusion of balance existed, because the fighting was drawn out it always appeared my opponents had a chance of turning the tide.  But I was always so far ahead in VP by turn 3 or 4 and had already cleared out their first tier and significantly weakened the second by the time they got their units in position enough to make any sort of counter charge.  I didn't play against a high mobility list, so it would have been interesting to see how balance was against a high mobility list, maybe considered a little less OP then eel spam.  But then I wasn't even really taking a true eel spam, I just took 2 units of 3 (1 of each type) in one game and they still were pretty nasty at the 1k level. (Additionally for deepkin players specifically, while turn 3 ASF normally can be difficult to take full advantage of, with the 3 tiered deployment of meeting engagement it ends up happening at the perfect time increasing the leg up our fast movement gives in meeting engagement over many armies even more).   Maybe its just a case of my tome specifically increasing in power, but its not like it needed the boost, and I think pretty much all the "OP" armies are going to benefit from this game method just as much. 

Its definitely very early and I am sure I am putting the cart in front of the horse here, but my first impression upon rule leaks was bad (from a competitive perspective) and everything I have seen has reinforced that opinion, and in fact I think it might be even less competitive then I initially thought it would be.

Edited June 25, 2019 by tripchimeras

[tripchimeras]

Also on the topic of movement, its not just that fast movers are great at claiming objective points early, its also that they are great at bringing their presence to bear much quicker when deployed in later tiers.  A tier three movement 6 unit in many of the scenarios is going to find it difficult to get involved until turn 4, especially if a lot of the action at that point is occurring outside on opponents side of board.  I think that is just far too late, so you either need to find a way to deep strike them, attempt to control the battle in a way where you are ensuring they can have an immediate impact turn 3, or deploy your slower moving units early and save high  mobility for late, but then you are losing out on potentially projecting board control the first 2 turns and taking an early lead. 

Granted that the way the tiers are written I think they want you to bring out your foot sloggers early and then bring out your big guns in tier 3, many of which will likely be fast, but their is enough flexibility in tier 2 that often I think this won't happen.  In the games I have seen so far, everyone has chosen to be very limited in turn 3 mostly bringing out the minimum possible dregs last, unless there was a non-battle line unit they wanted to double up on or are bringing out artillery (which I will be interested to see how it gets used like that, the closer range right off the bat might help, but the lateness of the deployment has to significantly hurt utility).  Perhaps this relegation of the tier 3 wave to the back seat turns out to be a mistake we have been making, but I kinda doubt it.  Again I think its an instance of good intentions on rule writers' part, but they gave too much flexibility in turn 2 at such a low point level as 1k to make it necessary.  Deny behemoths completely from turn 2 for example would have helped here.  In a larger game I think the tiers would have more of an impact, but at a smaller level game I think most armies are going to be able to fill up on most of their list in turn 2 deployment, and they are going to be incentivised to do so to avoid falling behind on objectives and losing all of their early deployers to predatory flyers.  Again perhaps if you couldn't score until turn 3 there would be incentive to wait or something, but as it stands for the most part I don't think there will be. 

I could be wrong on all of this, and I very well may look like a fool in a few months (wouldn't be the first time).  I personally enjoy speculating before we already know the facts on forums, so I am happy to be the guy who ends up with egg on his face haha.  But I really do think this mode of play needs to keep emphasis on casual, beer and pretzel games and it will be great. 

[stato]

28 minutes ago, tripchimeras said:

Also on the topic of movement, its not just that fast movers are great at claiming objective points early, its also that they are great at bringing their presence to bear much quicker when deployed in later tiers.  A tier three movement 6 unit in many of the scenarios is going to find it difficult to get involved until turn 4, especially if a lot of the action at that point is occurring outside on opponents side of board.  I think that is just far too late, so you either need to find a way to deep strike them, attempt to control the battle in a way where you are ensuring they can have an immediate impact turn 3, or deploy your slower moving units early and save high  mobility for late, but then you are losing out on potentially projecting board control the first 2 turns and taking an early lead. 

Granted that the way the tiers are written I think they want you to bring out your foot sloggers early and then bring out your big guns in tier 3, many of which will likely be fast, but their is enough flexibility in tier 2 that often I think this won't happen.  In the games I have seen so far, everyone has chosen to be very limited in turn 3 mostly bringing out the minimum possible dregs last, unless there was a non-battle line unit they wanted to double up on or are bringing out artillery (which I will be interested to see how it gets used like that, the closer range right off the bat might help, but the lateness of the deployment has to significantly hurt utility).  Perhaps this relegation of the tier 3 wave to the back seat turns out to be a mistake we have been making, but I kinda doubt it.  Again I think its an instance of good intentions on rule writers' part, but they gave too much flexibility in turn 2 at such a low point level as 1k to make it necessary.  Deny behemoths completely from turn 2 for example would have helped here.  In a larger game I think the tiers would have more of an impact, but at a smaller level game I think most armies are going to be able to fill up on most of their list in turn 2 deployment, and they are going to be incentivised to do so to avoid falling behind on objectives and losing all of their early deployers to predatory flyers.  Again perhaps if you couldn't score until turn 3 there would be incentive to wait or something, but as it stands for the most part I don't think there will be. 

I could be wrong on all of this, and I very well may look like a fool in a few months (wouldn't be the first time).  I personally enjoy speculating before we already know the facts on forums, so I am happy to be the guy who ends up with egg on his face haha.  But I really do think this mode of play needs to keep emphasis on casual, beer and pretzel games and it will be great. 

Its sound thoughts, but the different missions bring different tiers in differently and you should really have your list defiend before you roll for scenario (unless you are practicing specific things).

[tripchimeras]

5 minutes ago, stato said:

Its sound thoughts, but the different missions bring different tiers in differently and you should really have your list defiend before you roll for scenario (unless you are practicing specific things).

I didn't mean to imply we didn't do that.  We did.  I just don't think the different scenarios do a lot to change the fact that you are going to want to frontload to tier's 1 and 2, and that the current rules pretty much allow you to do that.  Since your list is set in stone, you don't want to leave things stranded on turn three or coming in too late.  So overall you are left wanting to front load especially since you can't tailor to scenario.  Speed is essential in all of them.

Edited June 25, 2019 by tripchimeras

[TheNotebookGM]

I wouldn't say speed is essential in all of them, I play Fyreslayers and went 2 and 1 in a 3 game event Sunday. Started winning games when I realized that slow armies just have to adjust playstyle. ME isn't a pure objective game like 2k is. For Fyreslayers, at least in the 3 scenarios we played, it seemed like my best strategy was to focus on holding my objectives and winning on kills, and by that token when I minored Nurgle it was only a minor because he had the presence of mind to minimize engagement and not let me get into combats when he knew he wasn't going be able to kill more than me.

The split deployments are what caused the most trouble for me since Fyreslayers depend so much on bubbles.

I disagree that this playstyle de-emphasizes the list building stage, I'd argue that it makes it even more important since you have to account for the split deployments and whatnot. 

[scrollbuilderdude]

On 6/24/2019 at 7:55 AM, Zamik said:

The Warscroll Builder has no room for Other units in the Main Contigent, though the chart in the GHB lists Other units at 0+ in the Main Body.

This should be fixed now. Give it a shot and let me know if you see any other issues.

Thanks!

-Tony

[Local_Goat]

I managed to play a few rounds of this versus my Moulder playing buddy, and I've gotta say that I'm hooked. The barrier to entry is much smaller than mainline AoS, and the staggered army deployment is a load of fun. Super excited to try out a couple more games of this system.