Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Stubbdog

Scenario Discussion

Recommended Posts

I have changed my opinion after watching 3 tournament games using this scenario at Origins.

 

In every game the Defender lost all 10 scenario points, and in every game I couldn't see a way for them to defend the throne tile.

 

Good attacker tactics were to keep fast leaders in the back. Create a small break in the enemy line that has formed around a doorway. Move leader model full speed towards the throne. With fast leader models it's almost certain that they'll get to it. Also by fast leader I mean 7+ mov, the faster the better of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The first scenario I played at the Origins Tournament was "Storm the Castle."

 

I ended up being the attacker.

 

Attacker: Necropolis [Devourer Doctrine]

Defender: Reven

 

My army consisted of the following:

 

Troop 1

Judas Bloodspire

- Naomi

- Tharian

- Gauntfield

- Crimson Knight x4

 

Troop 2

Aysa

 

Troop 3

Elsabeth Briarkiss

- Vanderast x2

- Skeletal Warrior x3

 

[Approximate rundown of events]

 

Deployment (from attacker's perspective):

- Troop 1 was deployed at the center entrance [Crimson Knights in front], Troop 2 deployed along the wall just to the left of center, and Troop 3 deployed at the left entrance [skeletal Warriors in front].

 

- The Reven had the following in the Entryway: Gnoll Archer x3, Nhoolyan Hunting Beast x2

 

Turn 1: Nhoolyan charged/trampled Troop 3, catching 2x Warriors, Elsabeth and a Bloodseeker. Warriors were killed; Elsabeth and Bloodseeker took a wound. Nhoolyan took 2 wounds. Troop 1 activated, the Crimson Knights and Judas basing the other Nhoolyan [no attacks]. Tharian cast Ice Shard at a Gnoll Archer, Naomi and Gauntfield moved in. Troop 3 activated; Elsabeth and wounded Bloodseeker finished off their Nhoolyan, the other Bloodseeker and Skeletal Warrior engaged a Gnoll Archer each [no attacks]. Aysa moved through the wall and cast ice shard at the damaged Gnoll, killing it. The Gnolls activated, kiliing the Skeletal Warrior and one being killed in return the the Bloodseeker. The remaining Nhoolyan managed to break from combat then attempted to trample the Knights. Unfortunately for it, its path included Judas, and failed its discipline check.

 

Turn 2: Troop 1 activated. Tharian focused and cast ice shard at the Nhoolyan, doing a point of damage and stunning it. The Knights chopped up the Nhoolyan as Judas went over to the door and knocked it open. Gauntfield charged the remaining Gnoll and killed it. Naomi moved up. Troop 3 activated, Bloodseeker attacked orcs waiting on the the other side of the door, Elsabeth and other Bloodseeker ran to catch up. Orcs engaged Bloodseeker and Judas, most died. Aysa ran through the wall and stayed out of trouble. Orcs guarding other door moved over to help out their buddies and the goblin mob came out of the throne room (one managed to engage Aysa, but no attacks) to help as well.

 

*** To be continued in a couple hours.***

 

***Continued***

 

Turn 3: Troop 1 activated. Tharian focused, cast ice shard at orc leader (Narg?) did a point of damaged and stunned him; Naomi moved towards doorway then cast firestorm on the goblins killing 6 or 7 of them; Judas charged Narg, killing him while three of the Knights charged in against the orcs and one Knight charged Bloodmane (wounded him, was killed but made tough check). Troop 2 [Aysa] activates, breaks from combat,moves then casts fearsome demeanor on a Crimson Knight standing next to Judas from inside the Throne Room. Goblins activate and charge in against Knights and Judas. Only two pass Discipline checks against Judas, none pass test against fearsome Knight.Those brave/foolish goblins died. Orcs activate, Bloodmane finishes off wounded Knight, and I think another Knight was wounded at the cost of a couple orcs. Troop 3 activates, Bloodseeker takes out Blackmane, the other takes out a pair of goblins, and Elsabeth runs into the Throne Room through the gap.

 

Turn 4: Troop 3 activates, Elsabeth sits on the throne while Bloodseekers start the cleanup. Troop 1 activates, Naomi and Tharian continue finishing off survivors.

 

*Basically picked a point, softened it up with artillery, punched through with the 'tanks', then had the 'fast movers' [Mov 6 and 7 in this case] exploit the gap and cause havoc behind the enemy lines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For any tournament, I HATE attacker / defender type scenarios. Who chooses sides? Some armies are stronger attackers, some stronger defenders.

 

Every scenario should be balanced towards both sides. Having attacker / defender in scenarios is likely to leave a bad taste in at least one persons mouth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think any scenario designed for tournaments should be given a very close look to make sure it doesn't become an auto-win for one army. I won a round on the first card flip. It was the only hope my opponent had, and I got my card, so she lost. Luckily, she wasn't aware of this and I made sure she had a great game even though she couldn't win. I let her fill Judas full of arrows and that made her quite happy. Meanwhile, the victory conditions were about token grabbing (my least favorite type of scenario due to this exact reason) and I had all the token off the board by turn 2. While I would like to say it was my amazing generalship that provided me the win, I know it was dumb luck that I brought Ranger Fliers speed bats and got my card first.

I've been on the other side of the table, watching my opponent score huge points based on nothing more than my army doesn't do well against this scenario. Some factions just can't compete in some scenarios.

Um, the point of this rant is - beware! But have fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have played it a couple of times and pretty much stand bassed on the final analysis of my first post.

 

I raked in the points when I was able to be the attacker and build specifically for this scenario.

 

When I attacked with non scenario specific lists, I won 2 out of 3 but with much lower pointed struggled victories.

 

As defender, I was 0-1 against an opponent that built specifically for this scenario but i was able to keep him from getting near as many points as i had done when i had built specifically for this scenario.

 

And I was 1-3 on defense when using non-specific scenario lists.

 

A tournament scenario that favors particular army builds is a bad scenario.

 

-Lionheart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

name a scenario that doesn't favor particular army builds?

 

 

Basic scenarios like capture the flag, don't kill the civilians, king of the hill etc... don't really favor a build. IMO builds become favored when player A has one objective and player B has a different one.

 

On a side note I've always thought it kind of defeats the purpose of having scenarios in tournaments, when the scenarios are posted here before hand and players can build for them. What is their function if they don't make players build a balanced force and throw a few wrinkles in the game?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RGT...

 

I would agree with you that if player A has one objective and player B has a different objective and you knew ahead of time that you were going to be Player A or player B such as to be able to build specifically for that role and trying to achieve the related objective, then yes you could have an advantage.

 

The question is, do you build your list in hopes of being player A or player B? And how bad off will you be if you built for A but turned out you played B.

 

I believe that is where a lot of the balance comes in some of these scenarios. The fact that you dont know which player you will be.

 

But, on the other hand, I completely disagree with you on the idea that certain army builds are or are not more favorable in scenarios like capture the flag, king of the hill, etc...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't mean they can't or won't favor one build over another... I'm just saying generic scenarios with equal objectives are less likely to favor certain builds.

 

 

As far as building for the scenarios. Granted, you may not know if you are player A or B. But you can evaluate both sets of objectives for all three scenarios and see which way you think they are leaning overall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't mean they can't or won't favor one build over another... I'm just saying generic scenarios with equal objectives are less likely to favor certain builds.

 

 

 

I feel that all tournaments should strive for this. Having unequal objectives is never a good thing for tournaments, IMO. For fun play, do whatever you want. Release a cool scenario pack that has a ton of one sided / attacker defender stuff. But in a tournament, it should not matter what side of the table I am on - grabbing tokens, king of the hil, defending a totem, doesn't matter - as long as both sides have the same (so we both have to take out the other sides totem - not I attack your totem).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...