Meeting Engagements

[eekamouse]

To be honest. This feels like Kill Team for AoS proper, while Warcry is Necromunda. I mean... it feels like Kill Team with Commanders and Elites and everything all baked in already in a small play space ala Cities of Death... I'm all in for this.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2019/06/11/the-generals-handbook-2019-meeting-engagementsgw-homepage-post-2/

[Skabnoze]

That is an interesting take.  I don't really get that feel because KillTeam still plays with a small campaign force that has experience, skills, and whatnot.  The campaign portion of that game is sadly very bare-bones, and hopefully they expand it with future content, but it is still a progressive campaign that follows a small force and splits units into individual skirmishers.  It is honestly not different enough from the current iteration of Necromunda for me to claim there is much of a difference.

Meeting engagements feels like it is simply a different format for Age of Sigmar.  From what we know it still uses all of the same core game rules and simply uses an alternate set of match play rules.  If the core rules do remain the same then I expect that this game format is going to feel radically different from a standard match play game simply due to things like the impact of battleshock on small units, the forced fragmenting of your force into different types of reserves.

But regardless of which other GW product Meeting Engagements most resembles I am extremely interested in it after the article they posted today.  More ways to effectively play smaller games is a good thing as it gives people more options to play with their collections.  Different game formats also means that different forces may be more useful in one or the other - which is a boon for both GW and people that like certain models.  An example is that within main Age of Sigmar many people don't care for the Gargant rules.  But in a game that uses mostly minimum sized units, is set at a lower point size, and requires a degree of splitting your army up there may be increased effectiveness for a cheap behemoth.  People may find that they still don't find it to be a good unit - but a big structural change for the game could create a big shake-up in regards to what is good in this game mode versus the traditional game.  I am all for anything that makes more models have interesting or compelling uses - and I am just in favor of variety in general.

 

[Equinox]

One thought I had this evening was whether or not Meeting Engagements will see a surge in grand alliance armies.  It seems like a good format to build small "teams" for each element that fit together as a GA.   

[eekamouse]

38 minutes ago, Skabnoze said:

Different game formats also means that different forces may be more useful in one or the other - which is a boon for both GW and people that like certain models.  An example is that within main Age of Sigmar many people don't care for the Gargant rules.  But in a game that uses mostly minimum sized units, is set at a lower point size, and requires a degree of splitting your army up there may be increased effectiveness for a cheap behemoth.  People may find that they still don't find it to be a good unit - but a big structural change for the game could create a big shake-up in regards to what is good in this game mode versus the traditional game.  I am all for anything that makes more models have interesting or compelling uses - and I am just in favor of variety in general.

 

100%.

[Skabnoze]

37 minutes ago, Equinox said:

One thought I had this evening was whether or not Meeting Engagements will see a surge in grand alliance armies.  It seems like a good format to build small "teams" for each element that fit together as a GA.   

We will have to see if there are any other restrictions than the stuff that was posted in today's article before we can really tell.  What the scenarios look like and how scoring works is going to be very important as well.  But my initial suspicion is that list-building is going to be very different for this play format than it is for standard matched play at 2k points.

[Wraith01]

I like the idea! Seams like a nice way to play smaller games. 

 

[kenshin620]

They better write in a summoning policy...

Otherwise "hey I got 2 archregents, oh look 40 more ghouls!"

Edited June 12, 2019 by kenshin620

[eekamouse]

3 minutes ago, kenshin620 said:

They better write in a summoning policy...

Otherwise "hey I got 2 archregents, oh look 40 more ghouls!"

Oh ya. Definitely. Or they made archeregents costs 400 points

[Aden]

8 minutes ago, kenshin620 said:

They better write in a summoning policy...

Otherwise "hey I got 2 archregents, oh look 40 more ghouls!"

I'm dying for a soup to nuts skirmishy scale game, I really hope everything is put together when we all kick the tires.

[Skabnoze]

16 minutes ago, kenshin620 said:

They better write in a summoning policy...

Otherwise "hey I got 2 archregents, oh look 40 more ghouls!"

If nothing else I hope that summoning is at least restricted to only min-sized units.  But I expect they will also have to do something to tweak allegiance abilities since some of them could get crazy pretty fast.  For example, Khorne Blood Tithe might potentially be pretty bonkers given that there will be a ton of minimum sized units in both armies to get killed.  Maybe they did not have to make any adjustments and it works out fine, but I hope that they at least gave some thought to these things and addressed them if necessary so that we don't have a promising start of a game mode that simply falls flat on it's face because of features designed for the core game that are left untouched.  GW has been pretty good so far I think when it comes to Age of Sigmar and so they have earned some trust from me, but I have seen enough issues in the past to be wary as well.

[Ruhraffe]

Does anybody know, if all the conditions (like 0 behemoth amd 0-1 leader) have to be met at once? So can I play a leader who is a behemoth in thr spearhead or not?

 

[Charleston]

16 minutes ago, Ruhraffe said:

Does anybody know, if all the conditions (like 0 behemoth amd 0-1 leader) have to be met at once? So can I play a leader who is a behemoth in thr spearhead or not?

 

Gecktron has already pointed out in the Rumour-Thread that it´s easier to understand in a table-Format:
 

You need at least a Leader and a Battleline Unit which are the Main Body. From what I´ve understood anything else is optional. So even BCR should be able to field something within point range

[Rollcage]

I'm very keen to give these a go. They seem a lot stricter on rules then the current 2000pts games are, I'm getting pretty tired of spamming the most effective warscrolls as many times as possible. I think the 2 warscroll cap definitely is something that appeals to me personally. 

Similar with the lack of 30 model units, a lot easier to move 10-20 models and the bonuses don't stack so highly on effectiveness either. 

I'd love to see the rest of the rules like the battle plans for these types of games, see what they did with objectives and rules surrounding those. 

[Redmanphill]

Yep I think we can't judge this system until we see the Battleplans. Everything hinges on them as they will define how we play and we have so far only seen what we can play with.

[TheNotebookGM]

It is important to note but from the chart omitted (it says it in the paragraph above) that you are required to deploy one unit in each deployment. Still, very few armies play at 1k without at least 4 drops, and most only do by making large units. 

[Carnelian]

1 hour ago, Ruhraffe said:

Does anybody know, if all the conditions (like 0 behemoth amd 0-1 leader) have to be met at once? So can I play a leader who is a behemoth in thr spearhead or not?

 

I would assume that if it days 0 behemoths in spearhead then you may take 0 behemoths in a spearhead, irrespective of whether or not they are also a leader 

[Kramer]

1 hour ago, Ruhraffe said:

Does anybody know, if all the conditions (like 0 behemoth amd 0-1 leader) have to be met at once? So can I play a leader who is a behemoth in thr spearhead or not?

 

That seems  like extremely wishful thinking. 😂 (And kind of looking to break the game already) 

[Banshee1978]

I think the problems of recurring and monotone army lists do not lie on the game rules but on the nature of some players to try to win no matter the cost cost and therefore exploit all posibilities even if it leads to stupid lists. 

Its a hobby not a tournament. building, painting, stories and some simple game mechanics come together to form a cool gaming experience. Otherwise i can play chess;) as aos is more based on luck of your dice than on strategic descisions;)

[Kramer]

4 minutes ago, Banshee1978 said:

Its a hobby not a tournament. building, painting, stories and some simple game mechanics come together to form a cool gaming experience. Otherwise i can play chess;) as aos is more based on luck of your dice than on strategic descisions;)

While I agree that's how it works for me. I always counter people who claim the opposite, so I feel for a sake of balance I should do so now as well. 

That it works for you this way is great, samesies here, but that's not the whole truth. That's just your experience. For a lot of people it is the tournament side of things that makes the hobby worth it. And that's absolutely fine. That way of thinkings doesn't ruin the game, just like a more narrative or casual approach doesnt do so. Taking it to extremes one way or the other will break the rules, but that's why it's called extreme. 
Also in tournaments it's based more on strategy than luck. Of course you need a bit of luck in match-ups, priority rolls and general lucky rolls, but that doesn't account for the same players placing high year after year. That's just skill. (this includes list building skill in my mind). 

8 minutes ago, Banshee1978 said:

I think the problems of recurring and monotone army lists do not lie on the game rules but on the nature of some players to try to win no matter the cost cost and therefore exploit all posibilities even if it leads to stupid lists. 

 

I also seen a lot of daft lists because of narrative reasons  But I understand what you mean. 

[RuneBrush]

I'm interested to see the rules in their entirety as part of me isn't sure quite how this is going to work in practise.  My biggest worry is that some armies are going to be amazing and others struggle because of the minimum unit sizes.  That said that's not really different to regular AoS games!

[Gaz Taylor]

3 minutes ago, RuneBrush said:

I'm interested to see the rules in their entirety as part of me isn't sure quite how this is going to work in practise.  My biggest worry is that some armies are going to be amazing and others struggle because of the minimum unit sizes.  That said that's not really different to regular AoS games!

100% agree with this.

I also like the sound of Meeting Engagements as will be easier for me to get games in as smaller battles will be easier to fit in after work 😉

[Brad Gamma]

I love this! 1000pts is my favourite point size for both AoS and 40k because:

• Its quite achievable for hobbysists to get painted, a 1000pt force is just a completely different psychological beast to a 2000pt army.
• It allows people to try out more armies, because the entry requirements are lower.
• Gives you that "full" warhammer experience, while being a bit quicker
• Works on a 4' x 4' board, and makes 6' x 4' feel like a more vast battlefield.

Problem is, things are never really quite written for 1000pts, so sometimes it feels like you are missing out on the larger picture, or not quite playing the right game. Having a specific game mode at this size is fantastic for me. I'm sure it'll have some issues like skirmish does, where ultimately some of the rules are not balanced for that particular game mode (already talk about summoning), but for me and my friends this is great 😁

I love the min sized unit requirement. AoS has a few too many bonuses for large units that make me feel I need to max out everything. The combination of max unit points discounts and rules like "+1 to hit for more than 20 models" makes it feel a bit pointless to go with  a smaller unit sometimes. Obviously some units have their large unit bonuses priced in, so don't know how balance it will be, but I still love this.

Also as someone who collects Tyranids and Orks for 40k, I am slowly growing tired of placing 4 to 5 units of 30 to 40 mooks on the board, moving them, piling them in etc. Even with movement trays!

[Elmir]

I like these rules, but... I also think some factions are just going to slip through the net of restrictions and still run a rampage on the battlefield.

As long as they allow any behemoth in turn 2, 1000p games are still going to boil down to "can you stop this monster".

[JPjr]

In terms of every faction being viable/good I honestly don’t think we should shed too many tears if not all factions work perfectly for this format. At some point, with so bloody many factions available from fully worked out ones with dozens of units to one’s with just a couple, you just have to say sorry maybe this one just isn’t for your little toys, why not try something else (though for all that I do actually think most will be capable of putting together something decent or at least fun).

After all you should be able to put something together fun and usable starting completely from scratch with most of the start collecting kits & just a couple of extra models. This is definitely just the threadbare excuse I need to collect and paint a few models from factions I haven’t considered yet.

Similarly in terms of a couple of factions slipping through with ridiculously strong options, with so many variables and not re-writing warscrolls & several rules from scratch to suit the format there will always be a few weird things that slip through, especially when people will be actively looking for ways to break it. It’ll take time to bed in and sort out unexpected wrinkles but I’d like to think, despite all evidence to the contrary, most people aren’t total arseholes and will play it in the spirit intended.

Edited June 12, 2019 by JPjr

[Mungrun]

Any idea of how this will affect Idoneth's gameplay? If most of the army appear in turn 2 they won't be synchronized with the waves system.