HTWWIG – Part 28: Keeping the Game Competitive
The Short Version: I believe that the current version of the Eternal War mission set is the most balanced set of missions that have ever existed in 40k. The Maelstrom of War missions could be tweaked to make them competitive, but as they exist in the rulebook, they're intrinsically imbalanced, which creates limited competitive value.
The unknown nature of objective placement in half of the EW missions makes for interesting challenges to consider, when playing Guard.
Eternal War and Maelstrom of War:A brief word on Mysterious Objectives: I don't use them.
Rather, I forget to roll for them, and so do the people I play with, to the point that after remembering to use them about three times in all of 6th edition, we just agreed to ignore them. Technically, the mysterious objective rules create objectives that have greater relative value, depending upon the metagame. Skyfire Nexus, for example, is so incredibly valuable in terms of “points” that I would actively seek to capture that objective at the expense of pretty much anything else. I mean, consider how much versatility it would give to an Exterminator Russ with Lascannon and a pair of Multi-meltas? We gave up on them mostly because it was just another piece of random to remember, and while it adds flavour to the game, we usually forgot about them after the first turn. In order to keep our games competitive, we gave up on them.
Another brief word. The EW missions are fundamentally balanced.
In two of the missions, both players have a guaranteed equal amount of control on the placement of objectives. Namely, The Relic and The Emperor's Will. 2/6 of the missions have 100% balance of control.
In the Scouring the value of each objective varies, but there's no way to know the values until after deployment zones are chosen, so even in the event of dramatically unequal values being placed there's no way to actively exploit that. There are 20 different ways to divide the 6 markers in half. 2 create a 5 point difference [5+10 / 10+5], 8 create a 3 point difference [6+9 / 9+6] and 10 have a 1 point difference [7+8 / 8+7].
Half of the time there's a 1 point difference. 10% of the time, there's a 5 point difference in terms of control, while the remaining 40% of the time, the value of difference is equal to a single primary objective in another mission. Given that there's no way to knowingly exploit that, and that even if one person knew from the outset which counters they had, the deployment zones are randomly determined after the objectives are placed, I feel that this mission is balanced. The random values give a slight benefit to faster moving armies, which is somewhat offset by granting bonus VP's for destroying Fast Attack choices. In my view, there's 100% balance of control in this mission setup, even if that results in an unpredictable degree of imbalance in acquiring those VP's. So far, 3/6 missions have a balance of control in setup.
Purge the Alien has an equal amount of control between the players. While this doesn't result in equal challenge, neither does attempting to achieve objectives. More mobile armies will generally have an easier time accomplishing those goals. The same is true of “Elite” armies when compared to “Horde” armies when it comes to generating Kill Points. This is within the player's control, however. They choose their strategies when building their lists, and if they choose to run many small units to more easily secure objectives, they run the risk of giving away easier First Blood points, and of giving away easier KP's in PtA missions. 4/6 missions have a balance of control.
Which leaves us with Crusade and Big Guns Never Tire. 2/6 missions have direct balance of control 1/3 of the time [when 4 objectives are generated] which means that 4/6 + [2/6 x 1/3] = 78% of missions have guaranteed balance of control. So what happens when 2/6 missions generate either 3 objectives or 5 objectives? 22% of the time, there's an imbalance, and half of that time, you're in control of that imbalance. So in 11% of the games you play, you can decide between risking favoring one deployment zone over another, or placing a more central objective which should hypothetically balance the game. That decision would probably be influenced by the balance of units you choose to take, which I'll discuss later on.
In 11% of the games you play, your opponent will get to make that decision. While that does create a situation of imbalance, a situation in which you lose the balance of control, it only happens in 11% of games, and of that, how often will your opponents exploit that imbalance? My guess would be that only in 5% of games is there any imbalance created through loss of a minor degree of control when setting up a game, which in the end, makes for a highly competitive platform on which to play. The Eternal War missions are highly competitive, and a minor tweak to have all D3+2 missions become 4 objectives would completely eliminate that possibility of imbalance. It isn't my objective to create ways to fix the missions however. One could spend an entire writeup trying to balance Maelstrom of War Missions.
In case it isn't obvious, Maelstrom of War missions are not competitively balanced in any real way. Intelligent deployment and play in the first couple of turns has little bearing on the rest of the game, because the objectives might suddenly shift out of reach. There's no sense of equal control in the generation of missions, there's just so many ways that the game can fall apart on turn 1 without any fault from either player... I haven't given it much of a chance, but the people I play with have all pretty much come to the conclusion that MoW missions are just random things to do during your turn, that feel like they take away control of your army. I'm mounting an intelligent flanking maneuver, but suddenly I need to get to the other flank, and blow up a building [which we aren't using] and kill a flyer... that isn't on the board yet? We've observed games that were one sided simply due to unfortunate objective generation. We don't generally see that in EW missions, and it is RARE when it does. I might come back to it someday.
I hope that it is self-evident, MoW missions can be fun, frantic, challenging, and exciting... but they aren't competitive as I described in the last writing.
I still want to play MoW missions, what should I consider when making a competitive list?Since mission success is determined at the end of the game in EW missions, some issues present themselves in regards to army selection.
First off is that Objective Secured has an unpredictable value to it in an Eternal War Mission. By that, I mean that OS
only has value at the end of the game, if something is close to you. Since the game has an unpredictable end point, determined by dice rolls at the end of turn 5 and 6, OS only has guaranteed value on the 7th turn, when it will definitely be the final turn.
If I realize that the game could end on the 5th turn, I will intelligently determine that the odds of having 6 or more turns is greater than the odds of ending on turn 5. As such, I might hold back on committing to the securing of an objective, if that puts that unit at risk of being destroyed through over-aggressive action. On the other hand, if I'm in a dire situation, I might risk moving to an objective turn 5 in hopes that the game ends then and there, with my victory. I'd be more inclined to do this if I've got last turn. As the game length isn't certain at that point, I have to make a
TACTICAL decision. Something I enjoy about 40k is the number of tactical decisions that occur during a game. By contrast, in a MoW mission, moving an OS unit to an objective to claim it is a
STRATEGIC choice. I can be
certain that I will score a tactical objective point if I move onto an objective, regardless of turn.
Objective Secured has less relative value in an EW mission when compared to a MoW mission, which is one reason I feel that IG in particular have little reason to dogmatically stick to Battleforged lists. I've played a handful of games since 7th edition has come around, and not once has OS made a difference in my games, despite using BF lists. Again, I like our Troops, and I like our HQ choices, and my collection is based on ye-olde FOC restrictions, so I have no reason to not use BF lists... but other people really shouldn't feel that obligation if that isn't they way they like to play.
Next, as goals are only counted at the end of the game, EW missions lend themselves to greater permission to pursue multi-turn strategies / tactics. An element I find rewarding. A player has about 6 turns to achieve their goals, so whether an objective is secured turn one and defended, or it is secured on turn 6 through desperate gambit, there is no difference to the end result. Slower, tougher units can take multiple turns to work their way towards their goals, and then camp out till the bell rings. Damage output is less critical to the overall game plan. Hypothetically, a game could be won without initiating a single attack, aside from PtA missions. Unit position at the end of the game is the critical factor, so a unit that is sufficiently tough to survive attacks can win a game by securing an objective, without causing any damage at all.
By comparison, the primary goal of all MoW missions is to create “turnover” of objectives. I score a point, which gives me a new way to score a point. If I accomplish that, I get a new objective, which gives me a new way to score a point, and so on. Two thirds of the objectives involve claiming a location, or multiple locations. More accurately, they involve being near a location at the end of your turn. No need to “claim,” so much as pass by. Faster, more mobile units are more capable of accomplishing this goal
in a single turn. A Wave Serpent can fly from one end of the board to another in one turn, and thanks to
probably having OS they could reasonably expect to claim an objective that they move to.
Foot slogging infantry? Not so much. Two thirds of the goals reward fast moving units, to create that turnover of claiming location-based objectives. Getting stuck with a mission you can't accomplish “easily” means you have less chance of generating a new mission to accomplish, which means you can't gain new means to score points. Being screwed on turn 1 prevents you from getting new missions that you could score easily, prevents you from scoring points, creates a vicious cycle that prevents you from getting new missions, which prevents you from scoring points, which prevents getting new missions.........
The other one third of the objectives are dedicated to destroying something. Sometimes something specific, sometimes something general. Units that can create overwhelming damage are more valuable than units that might grind down their opposition over the course of several turns, for the same inability to create turnover described above. High Strength, AP 1 weapons become
relatively more valuable, as they're the most likely to create objective turnover in a single shot, though ID'ing a Character or Exploding a vehicle. Units like Commissar-lead Conscripts lose relative value, as their primary purpose is to slowly move to an objective and hold it till the end of the game, potentially grinding down opposition over several turns. They aren't going to create “Kill it, kill it!!!” objective turnover in the same way that Fire Dragons are, let's put it that way.
Remember how Eldar are the uber-bad-asses of EW missions these days? They're exponentially more powerful when you take them into MoW missions. It is crazy easy to create turnover with that style of play.
I find that Guard have a particularly difficult time with the goal of quickly turning over objectives. We have few units that combine speed and firepower.
Vendetta, sure. Vets in a Valk? Yeah. Deep Striking Scions... kind of. Evil Mutt tanks can be pushed into that role. What I'm saying is that most units, outside of our FA choices, are ill-suited to that kind of rapid redeployment play, that also encourages efficient kill power. For the most part, we're either forced into slow movement, like Russes, or we sacrifice firepower in large amounts to move quickly. A Chimera with a unit inside is expensive, in the grand scheme of things, because it carries several “big guns”. If you're moving flat out, you're outputting the same speed, and damage as a Marines in a Rhino. We aren't designed for being in the face of things, though, so by moving closer without diminishing the opposition first, we put ourselves at a relative disadvantage. If you get blown up on your way there, your squishy Infantry are easier pickings than Marines. Our Army isn't built for that style of play, and it will be an uphill battle.
The overall list building strategies are quite different between EW and MoW missions. In my experience, taking a “traditional” list to a MoW mission is basically suicide. Even taking a BF list to a MoW mission is very difficult, without playing all of your Troops and HQ inside Valk/Dettas.
Many other armies make that transition more elegantly than Guard do, so I wouldn't feel that I am taking a “competitive” list unless I tailored a list towards MoW style play. Podded Marines, Biker Marines, Tau in Devilfish + Suits, Eldar Serpents + Jet-bikes, DE Raiders + Venoms, Speedy Nids, Deep Strike Termie Lists, even Speed Freak Orks are going to transition fairly easily. The style of play that I outline below doesn't transition very well. It could be a weakness in the style I prefer. Many people don't play the way I do. I've found that what I present is the most competitive way to play Guard in EW missions, and since I find those missions to be the most competitive, I would tend to stick with that as my core advice.
No matter what, we don't have Eldar Jet-bikes that can missile themselves from one side of the board to another, to Objective Secure a guaranteed point from a location objective. We don't have the kind of concentrated firepower that Fire Dragons can bring, to destroy a given target in a single turn with near certainty. Our codex, more than any other, rewards multiple turn tactics and strategies. Grinding down enemies while they trip on the bodies of our dead, so that they drown in the blood of our comrades. That's life in the Guard. We don't cut with the sharpest of scalpels, we don't strike with the swiftest of arrows. We slowly grind things beneath a boulder, and that doesn't lend itself to flying around all over the board like a strung-out hummingbird.
Deploying Objectives in EW:One of the balancing effects of the shift to 7th edition, is that objectives are placed prior to deployment zone determination, for many missions. The Scouring, Big Guns Never Tire, and the Emperor's Will all have the objectives placed
before you know where you'll be starting! This has an impact on the strategies that competitive Guard lists should consider.
I'm briefly going to describe 3 broad categories that I find IG units fall into. Sit'n'shoot, Grinders, and Deep Deployment units.
Sit'n'shoot units like to, well, sit and shoot. They prefer to keep their distance from enemies, hunker down in a well defended position, and blast the crap out of enemy units before they can get close enough to threaten them. Artillery, Leman Russ Battle Tanks, Vanquishers, infantry with heavy weapons, these units all like to take advantage of their range to damage enemy units while only exposing themselves to minimal return fire. Few codices can do Sit'n'shoot quite like the Guard can.
Grinders are units that tend to advance slowly, while applying mid range firepower to enemy units that they approach. Leman Russ Demolishers, Punishers, infantry in Chimera, Armoured Sentinels. These units can move slowly, while still outputting a reasonable amount of damage.
Deep Deployment units are the units you'd use to get to an objective on the far end of the table. Infantry in Valkyries or Vendettas, Deep Striking Scions, Outflanking Scout Sentinels, even Hellhound variants are able to get to the far end of a table without sacrificing much of their firepower. They tend to have lower damage output for the points you spend, but they have mobility. A rare and expensive trait in Guard units.
One strength that Guard lists typically enjoy, is strong Sit'n'shoot units. These units are even more valuable when they have an objective to camp around, because they serve a dual purpose. Heavy firepower to damage enemy units, and scoring an objective. Without knowing where you'll deploy, how can you guarantee that you'll have an objective to camp?
Let me ask you a question, and it's
important.If you play on a Vanguard Strike map, do you always use a bottom left / top right split, or do you randomize between bottom left, top right and bottom right, top left split? It's optional in the rulebook.
If you always play BL / TR split, then it is possible to guarantee that an objective will be in your deployment zone so long as you receive 2 objectives to place. This occurs in 5/6 missions that are played with D3+2 objectives. The only way you'd have just one objective to place, is if your opponent got the first objective in a 3 objective scenario. Even then, they might place an objective in such a way as to guarantee an objective in both deployment zones, so there's always that.
In the diagram below, each square represents a 3” square section of a typical 6' x 4' board. The dark rectangles are areas that you could place an objective, that overlap all 3 deployment zones. If you placed an objective in each of those rectangles, you'd have a 100% chance of being able to deploy on top of an objective.
Since there are 6 deployment zones, total, you have a 1/6 chance to place an objective within the deployment zone that you'll wind up in. If you were to, for example, place an objective in the lower left rectangle, you'd have a 3 [overlapping DZ's] x 1/6 chance = 50% chance to roll a deployment type with that objective in it... and you deploy on that half of the board. Perhaps the opposite corner is overly congested with terrain, leaving poor lines of sight. Instead of deploying your 2nd objective in that corner, maybe you deploy it in a location that the upper right “Vanguard” deployment overlaps the top “Dawn of War” deployment zone. That would give you a 2 x 1/6 chance to wind up deploying in one of those two overlapping sections. Assuming your opponent deploys a central objective with 0% chance of being within a deployment zone, you'd have a 50% +33% = 83% chance to deploy on an objective. Multiply that by the 5/6 chance to receive 2 or more objectives, and you would have a 69% overall chance in any game to be able to deploy that way.
In a perfect world, you could place an objective in both rectangles, which you could do in 83% of all games, but the terrain may not suggest that as a valuable method. Of course, you sometimes get 3 objectives to place, and you could always place them top centre, mid right, and bottom left... I'm just sayin'.
Your playing partner, however, may not want to go easy on you. Maybe they have a fast, aggressively mobile force and they want to be a dick about it.
They may insist on random diagonal in the event of Vanguard Strike. If you roll before objectives are placed, you could just mirror the map above and be fine. If you roll randomly
after the objectives are placed, that makes things significantly more complicated...
[Out of Space...]