Matched Play Battleplan discussion

[The Jabber Tzeentch]

‪How do you think the six Matched Play Battleplans tactically represent different builds of army?

What builds or styles of army suffer or benifit the most?‬

Do you find that the different Battleplans allow for some army builds to benefit and other to suffer?

[Double Misfire]

I think that Three Places of Power has the the most obvious effect on people's lists as it forces you to take a certain type of model several times if you want to guarantee a victory, and many of the other pitched battle scenarios are won by volume of numbers. Having to take three or four heroes is probably especially harsh on more elite armies of multi wound models like Stormcast or Ironjawz, who might struggle to contest or claim objectives against more numerous armies of single wound models in Take and Hold, Border War, Escalation and Blood and Glory. I played at a 1k event at the weekend where Three Places of Power and Escalation weren't included in the event's four games - with three heroes an especially tall order for a lot of builds at such a low points level I wasn't surprised to see a lot of armies with only one or two heroes dominating the top tables during the day - would they have done as well overall if Three Places of Power had been on the menu and they'd been drawn against an army with three or four heroes?

I'm surprised that more people don't steer towards putting more than the minimum amount of points into battleline, or taking ranged battleline when they can in Escalation. The scenario guarantees that if you're not going for a battalion or using an allegiance army with a slim amount of options like Ironjawz you're only ever gonna take the minimum amount of battleline for your points value (assuming most players wouldn't have done this already!). I run a lot of ranged stuff and warmachies in my duardin force and as a result don't really care too much about going first or second; I'm currently experimenting with Hunting Hounds from the Wood Elf compendium as true WFB style 20 point chaff redirectors and deployment drops, and am very interested to see how favourably taking five or so dogs works for me in Escalation, allowing me to get my entire army bar the dogs on the board in the first and second waves.

The matched play battleplans in general lend themselves to mobile armies and lots of bodies, which I don't think could ever be considered a bad thing, as gunlines and herohammer have been the two most complained about parts of list design among players (at least players who don't use them ) for as long as I've been gaming at least!

[MrCharisma]

15 hours ago, The Jabber Tzeentch said:

‪How do you think the six Matched Play Battleplans tactically represent different builds of army?

What builds or styles of army suffer or benifit the most?‬

Do you find that the different Battleplans allow for some army builds to benefit and other to suffer?

I think each scenario rewards different army composure. 

I agree with @Double Misfire, and I personally take 70 battle line models in a 2,000 point army. 

My army has traditionally been light on characters and speed which has benefited me in some and punished me in others. It also acts better as a single unit, which hurts in Blood & Glory. Gift from the Heavens can be great and terrible for me...