What value does Total Commitment have in terms of gameplay?

[Sagittarii Orientalis]

I must first confess that I have been exclusively playing Stormcast Eternals since the match play was launched in 2016.I view the missions in the general's handbook rather positively, as many of them seem to emphasise manouevres and board controls to a fair degree.The missions themselves seem to be improving for better gameplay. For example, the change to the movement route of objective in Relocation Orb.

There is however, one mission I am struggling to find worth in terms of gameplay - Total Commitment. Now, many of you might instantly point out I am not feeling pleasant with this mission because I play Stormcast, and all that is needed is for me to "get good". However I always expect to play this specific mission, and hence prepare my list and tactic to adapt to it. So far playing Total Commitment and actually winning was far from impossible, at least in my local club where the meta is rather "casual".

This however does not stop the mission from leaving sour taste in my mouth, regardless of the outcome. The mission invalidates nearly half the allegiance ability of the Stormcast, which already suffer from general lack of mobility even with the Scions of the Storm.  Meanwhile, the mission gives almost no disadvantage to the opposing player unless the game is a mirror match between stormcasts. And stormcasts are not the only faction that is seriously penalised in the mission. Nighthaunt is another faction which allegiance ability imbues army-wide reserve deployment.

Thus in my view, Total Commitment heavily punishes very few specific factions without actually providing tactical challenge to the other opposing factions. The fact that most of the large-scale tournaments almost always include Total Commitment in the rulepack exacerbates my frustration, which stems from feeling that my faction is being unfairly penalised.

I cannot stop thinking that this mission is devised under the notion that army-wide reserve rule is extremely lethal to the gaming environment, thus requiring an extreme form of limitation via mission rules. If this is true at all, then I believe it is an oversight.

Most of the reserve rules have "more-than-9 inches" restrictions, and in many cases units in reserve must be set up on the board by battle round 3. With relatively cheap "screening" units and careful deployment, denying enemy reserves from being set up on ideal position is far from difficult. Crucial charges from big unit of evocators can be denied with a fodder unit of grots, or prevent ballista batteries from shooting 4 shots per model at my important unit.

However if army-wide reserve rule is still deemed terrifyingly strong so that a special mission is required to rein it back, I believe forcing reserve units to be set up until the end of battle round 2 would have sufficed.  I believe an outright prohibition of core allegiance ability is a limitation too extreme. Imagine a mission where summoning is strictly forbidden, or where units with fly can no longer do so. I see Total Commitment no less harsh and unfair than these examples.

Initially, I attempted to send the feedback to the games workshop via AoS facebook. However, I thought it would be better to listen to how other players with different factions view the mission before sending the feedback. Perhaps there might be more to the mission than I am aware of.  So if you still believe this is only a tantrum thrown by an immature stormcast player, then please feel free to enlighten me on the value of the mission I might have missed. Thank you.

 

 

Edited August 22, 2019 by Sagittarii Orientalis

[Kramer]

I think the value is:

‘However I always expect to play this specific mission, and hence prepare my list and tactic to adapt to it’

which means you can’t go all in on the reserves rules or you might get hard counterrd by the scenario. That impact on the lists has, in theory, value. 

The only  issue, for me at least, is that most reserve rules are quite cool. And as I don’t play a lot it feels... sucky if I can’t use cool rules for units I brought for that reason. But that’s an easy fix

[Marzillius]

Total Commitment is indeed the worst mission. It's not like Stormcast and Nighthaunt are running around the tournament scene smashing every opponent. Far from it. Of Total Commitment is a thing then there should be missions where summoning is banned, where you are not allowed to fight twice and where Death has not 6+ shrug. It's just stupid to have a mission that only penalises two armies. Other armies that can teleport, like Seraphon and Hand of Gork han still do their movement tricks, it's only Stormcast and Nighthaunt that get shafted.

[schwabbele]

Zero value. I wrote it off as one of the many things their playtesting team forgot. 

[amysrevenge]

It's another example of an attempt to force balance that only covers one thing and completely bypasses the top tier armies.

Basically, in the game we've got variable battleplan or realm rules that will occasionally cripple reinforcement-heavy builds (Total Commitment), or  shooting-heavy builds (Ulgu) and many folks tend to say "Well, this forces you to build a more rounded force, not relying on any simple tricks". 

But we don't have similar rules that will occasionally cripple combat builds or magic builds, allowing other armies to very consistently rely on their best simple tricks - there is no realm or battleplan rule that influences FEC army builds away from the main toughest choice, same for DoK, same for Slaanesh, same for other top tier armies.  SCE need to consider all the potential realms and battleplans when they build their lists, these others do not.

I am fine in a world with Total Commitment and Ulgu, if it also includes optional rules that cripple pure combat builds as heavily as Ulgu cripples a pure shooting build, or T.C. cripples a reinforcement build.  Force EVERYONE to build their army as if the only thing they are good at could potentially be unavailable.  If it's only a small selection of them that have to do this, it isn't really fair.  Some people need to chin up/git gud/diversify away from their strengths, others can just ride on their strengths without a care.

[Planar]

As a NH player I am fine with it. Just a different sort of challenge to face, different things to think about. 

Btw, fyreslayers and skaven are also affected by it, both featuring heavily in the current meta.

I think it is a useful scenarion

[kuroyume]

19 minutes ago, amysrevenge said:

I am fine in a world with Total Commitment and Ulgu, if it also includes optional rules that cripple pure combat builds as heavily as Ulgu cripples a pure shooting build, or T.C. cripples a reinforcement build.  Force EVERYONE to build their army as if the only thing they are good at could potentially be unavailable.  If it's only a small selection of them that have to do this, it isn't really fair.  Some people need to chin up/git gud/diversify away from their strengths, others can just ride on their strengths without a care.

This. If Total Commitment exists, then there should be scenarios with no magic, or no summoning, or no command abilities, or no battleshock immunity, etc. If Ulgu exists, there should be realm rules to slow down movement, or reduce or eliminate pile in, etc.

[T10]

4 hours ago, Kramer said:

I think the value is:

‘However I always expect to play this specific mission, and hence prepare my list and tactic to adapt to it’

which means you can’t go all in on the reserves rules or you might get hard counterrd by the scenario. That impact on the lists has, in theory, value. 

I am sure that is true under the condition that the player considers himself able to construct and play an army that has the potential to perform satisfactory in this mission.

The OP, considering his track record with it, would in fact be better served investing as little effort as possible in handling the scenario and instead focus on improving his odds on other scenarios where he can play to his army's strength. In other words: MORE reserves!

Astute readers may notice that this would be the opposite effect than one would assume is the intention of the designers of the scenario.

-T10