Spear's Head test mission

[smittyrj78]

Alright here is another one and yes its another short board edge mission.. We hope to have several missions to draw from and probably wont take multiple missions with the same deployments. Please give any post game feedback! thanks

Attachments:

[chumbalaya]

I like this one. The short-edge deployment isn't as kind to footsloggers though.

[Brinan The Barbarian]

Jun 17, 2010 13:43:30 GMT -5 chumbalaya said:

I like this one. The short-edge deployment isn't as kind to footsloggers though.

Im really not trying to sound like a thingy, even though it may come out like i am,but every mission can't be good for every army. Part of winning a gt is showing that you are so skilled of a player, that you can build a nice army, and find ways to adapt to the advirsity you find in the missions. Its like saying a mission with nightfight hoses shooty armys. It does, but if you can win a game like that, than you have proved that you are a good player and have earned a shot at the top spot. It is actuLly generous that you get to know the missions beforehand, rather than being surprised at the tourney.

[chumbalaya]

You should be rewarded for beating your opponent, not the mission.

[Horst]

a good list should be able to overcome obstacles like getting to grips with the enemy at the other side of the table. Its at most a 4" distance.. while in spearhead, it can be almost as long at times depending on deployment.

even in pitched battle, if your enemy deploys in a denied flank formation, half your army has to often go that far anyway. In fact, starting on short table sides has several advantages for melee armies.

1) enemy has less horizontal maneuver room to run away.
2) outflanking is MUCH more powerful, if a unit has a 12" move or fleet there is only a 1' safety zone in the middle of the table.
3) your enemy has a harder time flanking your transports to get in side armor shots, or get around a blocking heavier tank, because of the narrower field.

those advantages seem to me, at least, to be equal in weight to the extra 2' the army has to travel to get to grips with the enemy. Any good assault army takes outflankers, deep strikers, teleporters, or very fast transports. These things will be very effective at closing that gap. Its not enough to build an army that just spams ground troops. you need a way to close the distance. And if your army isn't dedicated assault, like space marines or eldar, then you need to find a way to build a shooting element into your army as well to cover your assault elements.

Variable missions like this, that radically change the game, add an extra dimension of depth to list building, because you not only have to plan for any enemy, but you have to plan for any deployment or mission type.

The problem with requiring such diversity in the list is that if you face an opponent, who DOESN'T put diversity in his list, and you just happen to play him on a match that favors his unbalanced list, you will likely loose. However, you can normally take solace in the fact that he won't win the tournament either, because his list won't do well in other missions, that require a different build.

To this end, i'd say that an excellent counterpoint to this mission would be an all nightfight mission, or something similar. Armies that have balance between elements could sustain a short ranged firefight (eldar and tau BOTH have decent assault elements, as well as close ranged shooting elements that can be used in a fight like this) would be a fair match, however, like the short edges mission, the unbalanced army, with nothing but hand to hand units, would still be at an advantage. By doing this, we ensure that the player who can win BOTH of these missions has a balanced list, and knows how to use it.

Its unfortunate some people may be eliminated because of a bad match up. However, and I speak from experience, a balanced list can usually pull a draw against a powerhouse list. So, if you draw a 9 broadside, 20+ suit tau in the short table edges mission, play for the draw. there's no shame in it, because if you brought, say, mechanized marines, there's no way your going to be able to close that distance before being atomized, and no way to outshoot them. Hopefully you get a balanced opponent in this missions counterpoint, the nightfight mission. if not, play for the draw there, too.

In any case, your unbalanced opponent from one mission will get a draw against you, if you play it right, and a loss in the other mission. Your unbalanced opponent in the second mission will be in the same boat. You, however, come out with 2 draws and no losses... at worst. In both cases, better than the outcome of an unbalanced list, and possibly better than the outcome of facing 2 balanced lists, depending on if you could win both of those games.

And thus, this is my mission - balance thesis. I wrote WAY FREAKING MORE than I intended too... but meh.

[fishboy]

I agree with Horst. The DaBoyz seems to be about balancing things out and the key seems to be "think differently.

[chumbalaya]

To me, balance shouldn't be "sorry we screwed you on this mission, here's an autowin to even things out". Balanced missions mean that any person with decent, balanced army has a roughly even chance of winning the game (obviously you can't account for dice or discrepancies in player skill).

Like I said before, the challenge should come from your opponent, not getting thrown into an unbalanced scenario.

[malice]

Here's comments from a small event that we ran this weekend:

1. Deployment Zone - the deployment zone drawing does not match the language in the description.

2. Victory Points is in every mission. You may want to mix this up a little.

3. Short Edge Deployment - some comments were geared towards only having one short edge deployment edge per event.

4. Tertiary Objective - Clearly define the table edge in this scenario. People were asking whether the short or long table edge should be used in this.