Tuesday, May 29, 2012

8th Edition Rules Change Redux - Scenarios

I’ve blogged numerous times regarding the use of scenarios at tournaments. My point in the past is that the rulebook scenarios act as a natural determinant of comp given the victory conditions or special situations inherent in each.


The UK – which is currently the home of most of the warhammer media (podcasts) – is heavily lined up against scenarios. Their opposition is generally based on the potential for non-games or the introduction of luck. I can’t help feeling that some of the most vocal detractors of scenarios dislike the fact that they are forced to adapt either their standard list (pre-event) or tactics (during the event) as a result of scenarios. I may be doing them a disservice but I don’t think that is the case.

To me the scenarios provide an extra layer of complexity into the game – and tournament planning – that requires a player to think more. It adjusts builds – inclusion of standards for B&G, increases the risk of deathstars (Meeting Engagement and Dawn Attack) – and has the potential that you’ll be faced with a situation outside your comfort zone.

The discussion around randomness and the introduction of luck is fine until you consider that there is luck pretty much involved in all aspects of the game – be it charge distance or the number of wounds caused by a warmachine, for example.

The introduction of scenarios was for me a key part of the 8th Edition experience. It reinforces that the game is now about risk management more than anything else. I see the removal of this aspect as a bit of a cop-out that makes the game less variable and rewards a standard build for each army which is generally centred on a concentration of force). If suddenly your Mage is off the table then this can either be a good thing or a bad thing – and if you can’t see that it can be both then you really haven’t thought about that scenario. Likewise if you haven’t paid for protection on your character and he is isolated from your army in Dawn Attack then you’ve made a choice by investing the points elsewhere. Like all army choices that should come with risk, not certainty around an impossible to get to bunker being available all the time.

Quite clearly for me scenarios are a win (and probably reflect my background in 3rd Edition, less so 4th Edition, 40k).

Rule Change: A

16 comments:

  1. My opinion if Scenarios is pretty similar Dan Heelan's, so they might scrape a B- from me just because they are fun for the odd club game. Not a big fan, except for Blood and Glory, because it's so damn tense. All the others do is add a chance to skew the game in one armies favour before the game even starts, and Watchtower and particularly Battle for the Pass give certain armies an advantage.
    Playing Empire or Dwarves in Battle for the Pass gets a bit rough.

    Still, they do add a nice bit of variety, and I don't mind them in Tournaments, especially when Watchtower is changed to King of the Hill and Battle for the Pass gets dropped altogether!

    ReplyDelete
  2. I pretty much disagree with all your response Ross - apart from enjoying Blood & Glory.

    Still differing views etc.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thought you might ;)

      One point I am interested in; Do you prefer King of the Hill to Watchtower?

      Seems like it's getting a bit of a staple around here now.

      Delete
    2. No, not really. Yo generally find that the same people will also be complaining that terrain has no effect on the game. And then take the one scenario that promotes understanding of terrain out of the game.

      I see it as unnecessary tinkering - although I acknowledge reforming into a building as a loophole that needs to be closed.

      Delete
  3. I'm a big fan of the scenerios. I like the fact that they do force you to think about how they affect your army. One of the things that got really stale for me in 7th was knowing exactly how I was going to deploy and army every game and then knowing exactly what I was going to do turn 1-6. Now with scenerios I dont know where my units will be, if they will be on the board at all (or minus that crucial character support), or if I will have the board width to get that "optimal" deployment.

    With the watchtower I initially thought that it would be a case of "whoever gets the biggest unit in there the fastest wins", but the more games I've had, the less and less this has been the case-especially when it changed to a 600Vp bonus and set at 6 turns. (for the purest counter arguement, I've yet to see a tournament that sticks to the 100vp/do x = win BRB conditions).

    Looking at some of the net lists can be dangerous-my woodie list at Horned Gobbo was based on some of the lists coming out of the UK. It did fantastically in the pitched battle-exploding lvl4 aside (where it was optimised), but struggled in some of the missions as it did not give them a serious consideration.

    Anything that forces people to think beyond "what is the filthest deathstar this army can create" is a win in my books.

    Also not a fan of the King of the Hill/forest variation as it panders to deathstars builds + does not have the same tactical considerations as having a watchtower, so not a good switch.

    Joel

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agree that it promotes death star builds and removes the restriction on only infantry/monstrous infantry claiming

      Delete
    2. Ditto. Though i actually think King of the forest would be alot better than king of the hill, If i had to pick between the two.

      Watchtower is fine. Why? Because you can ignore that unit. If they want to do something silly like stick a unshiftable unit in there. You can ignore and take the rest of the army out and still win.

      Scenarios are better than battleline. I think its a vocal few who have made the descision for most in the UK, though could be wrong

      Delete
    3. "Watchtower is fine" Only if you're not playing by the rules as written...

      Well, its the vocal few (in the UK) who are actually running the tournaments unfortunately. The usual problem of if you want it, do it yourself...

      Personally, Battle for the Pass is mainly a terrible mission because of the way tables are usually set up in tournament venues (end on end to get the most in) making it virtually impossible to easily deploy and play your game without wandering half way around the venue. People who say Empire and Dwarves get an unfair advantage, obviously are trying to run the length of the table. If my opponent starts board edging his Gunline, well he can enjoy his 30min 10pt draw... I'll find the bar, thanks!

      Delete
    4. Meals, you're back mate! Great to see and hope you can make it up to GuardCon. Loud obnoxious always attracts attention until proven troll like or tournament dislike. Lotsa meta in different countries and different regions of NZ. I still like NZ meta, hate OZ meta, and scared of UK meta :)

      Delete
    5. haha, Thanks mate. I'll see what I can manage but I should be good to go, as long as I can find employment.

      Delete
  4. I really enjoy reading comments about how some of the scenarios make Dwarfs over powered, makes me and my little friends feel important :D.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But you're not, just remember that...

      Delete
    2. I'm sorry, I wasn't always like this, I used to love Dwarves, then I read too much Fields of Blood :(

      Delete
    3. This site isn't anti-Dwarf. See April 1st blog post

      Delete
    4. For a day or two, I thought you were really telling the truth, but then I was very sadly mistaken.

      I do agree with you on how this site is not anti-Dwarf, its just anti-everything that skips out 50% of the game ;D.

      Delete