Battle Missions: An Early Assessment

[Warp Angel]

I went to the local GW store last night and spent about half an hour reading through the new Battle Missions book. I skimmed the overview, read the deployment, and special rules, and quickly went over "who went first" for EVERY mission.

 

There are going to be things that I missed, but I was seeking to understand the new book, and its impacts on players.

 

First of all, there's essentially 3 different ways to decide what mission you're going to play, if you want to play with the new book. The first one that will probably be most common is the "players roll off" to see who gets to use their race mission. So if you're up against an Eldar player, and they win the roll, they get to roll a d3 for which mission it is. The second one... the one I like... uses a d66 table to determine what mission is run, and even allows for the old rulebook to be used. It's the one that requires your army to be ready to play any mission - in either role.

 

And it's to this latter way of generating battles that I'm going to speak, though most of what I'm going to talk about is applicable to any randomly generated Battle Missions battle.

 

1. Mobility matters more than ever: Many of the missions require that your army advance across long distances to reach the nearest objective, and possibly almost all the way across the table to secure others. Some missions have as many as six objectives, and others result in your army arriving or being deployed in random sections of the game board. Armies that rely heavily on move-or-shoot platforms (i.e. devastators) are going to have an issue bringing their firepower to bear when a heavy support choice MUST start the game off the table.

 

2. Close Combat is harder to ignore: There's more than a few missions that place you within first turn charge distance, and that make it almost certain that you'll end up in assault at some point. There's even a mission where victory points are only scored by winning a round of close combat or by destroying an entire enemy unit AND having something within 18" of the destroyed unit.

 

3. Diversity in the force org slots matters: There are several "kill point" style missions where HQs and non Troops are worth more VP than Troops. This means that armies that make extensive use of small, easy to kill Hunter type units (single attack bikes, termicide), or that use multiple HQs, are more vulnerable to losing a KP game. Other games affect what units can be deployed by force org slot. There are some where HQ and Heavies start in reserve, or where the only units able to start on the table are Fast Attack. If you aren't spreading your army around, you're setting yourself up for some difficult matchups. Some missions have as mny as six objectives and simple denial may not always be enough. You might need to score more than the usual one or two.

 

4. You can't rely on using standard tactics: It's going to be a bummer for all you Khan players out there that live and die by Outflank, and it's going to put a hurt on Autarch Eldar and Guard armies that keep a lot of stuff off table to start the game. But there are missions where you are going to be unable to put anything in reserves, where Outflank doesn't work, and where infiltration becomes problematic. You can no longer say, "this is how I play my army" with any real certainty. We, as generals, are going to need to have more than just a few well-practiced tricks in our bag.

 

5. Anihilation isn't always a winner: In a change to Killhammer basic principles - there appear to be some missions where you can kill the enemy entirely, but still lose the game. There's a Chaos salvage mission where at the end of their opponent's phase, if they control an objective, they land the point permanently. There's a mission where troops automatically go back into reserves if they are destroyed, and missions where getting off the table and preventing the enemy from killing you is a good thing.

 

6. Terrain placement philosophy changes: The Battle Missions book is emphatic that you set up terrain BEFORE you know what the mission is. Terrain that might be awesome for one mission might be absolutely abysmal for another. You might not even be playing long table edges or quarters, so the table gets broken up dramatically different based upon the specific mission. Having an open field in the center of the table might be a good idea today, but if you're the "Space Marine" player in the "Last Stand" mission, cramming your entire army into the center 12" of the table with no cover is going to really suck.

 

Overall, I think that Battle Missions is a needed change to the 5th edition landscape and is better than the relatively rare 2nd edition book that once existed to add some variety in the distant past. I don't believe that the missions are all fair to each army, and some of them dramatically favor one army (and often a specific build) over another, but that's all part of the fun of playing the hobby.

 

I'd caution people not to think of this as "tournament" or "competetive" rules until the community has had more time to digest the implication and playtest more deeply than GW likely did.

 

I plan on using it for a Planetary Empires Campaign I'm going to start to make the battles more fun.

 

What are your thoughts on the new book and how are you going to use it?

[JamesI]

I'm looking forward to the new book. I like more missions making us change our styles, lists, tactics.

 

Thanks for the preview, I doubt I'll see the book until it hits stores for sale (the local stores here never have preview copies).

 

Almost always in my games terrain is setup before we know the mission/deployment rules so that won't be new.

[Captain Idaho]

I'm hopeful the competetive game can take this supplement and revolutionalise the game. I really mean it as then we will start seeing more varied army lists instead of the "cookie cutter" lists, plus I am confident a balanced approach will play a bigger part on peoples mindset.

 

Of course Warp Angel is right when he said this:

 

I'd caution people not to think of this as "tournament" or "competetive" rules until the community has had more time to digest the implication and playtest more deeply than GW likely did.

 

Caution is always a good idea!

[Warp Angel]

@Idaho:

 

Imagine being a Space Marine player, playing at 2500 points, WINNING the roll for who gets to roll for mission type, and then rolling 3: LAST STAND.

 

Your deployment zone is the center 12" of the table and EVERYTHING but fast attack must be placed there. You get fearless, and there is one objective in the center of the table.

The enemy deployment zone is 18" from the center of the table and their drawback is that HQ and Heavy start in reserves.

Oh, and unlike the other two Space Marine missions where you always go first if it's your mission, it's a straight up roll off.

 

Anyone besides me think it a bad idea to start a game within rapid fire range of a troop heavy Necron army, or guaranteed assault distance of an ork army with massive boyz squads?

 

There are darn good reasons why I don't think it's a great idea to glom onto this book for tournaments. Yet.

[waaanial00]

Well as soon as I heard about this (at least a year ago this was rumoured) I was planning on how it could be incorporated into our torunament, simply because the current three missions are kind of one dimensional when you play them weekly.

 

The first thing we will be doing with them is running a 40K campaign rotating through all of them. At least 4 games of varied armies/play styles and matchups per mission should give us a good idea of how they run. Of course most people arent luck enough to have a willing hoard of lab rats club mates to test these things out on :)

 

Wan

[Vanor]

Thanks for the preview.

 

This sounds like exactly the kind of thing I'd want to play with every time. To me the ideal way to play is never knowing if you can play the way you designed your list to work or not. If you know before you even set up, before you even know what the other person is playing that you will play a given way... Then to me that's a bad thing.

[Vel'Cona]

Coincidentally, I was thinking of the exact plan you had for this book, Warp Angel: campaigns. The narratives of "scenarios" vs. "games" tend to vary dramatically, and a campaign benefits far more than a tournament from unpredictable and unique situations occurring. I would love to see this style of book get used for a local campaign.

 

Thanks for the synopsis!

[IronDuke]

Thanks for the preview, it sounds very interesting. How do the missions affect some of the codex specific rules? I am specifically thinking of drop pod assault and the Last Stand mission you mentioned. Does the mission over ride the DPA rules, and all units must start in the 12", essentially making the drop pod a wasted 35 points, or do they deepstrike like normal?

Cheers, ID

[Warp Angel]

Thanks for the preview, it sounds very interesting. How do the missions affect some of the codex specific rules? I am specifically thinking of drop pod assault and the Last Stand mission you mentioned. Does the mission over ride the DPA rules, and all units must start in the 12", essentially making the drop pod a wasted 35 points, or do they deepstrike like normal?

Cheers, ID

 

I'm going to make a quick second pass through the local store tonight to look again, but I'm pretty sure that the codex saying "Always" will trump the mission specific rules. It means that taking a drop pod or three (two is usually a bad idea) might become a standard tactic. Keep in mind that some missions are going to control where you are able to land those pods.

 

Take nothing for grated though.

[Captain Idaho]

@Idaho:

 

Imagine being a Space Marine player, playing at 2500 points, WINNING the roll for who gets to roll for mission type, and then rolling 3: LAST STAND.

 

Your deployment zone is the center 12" of the table and EVERYTHING but fast attack must be placed there. You get fearless, and there is one objective in the center of the table.

The enemy deployment zone is 18" from the center of the table and their drawback is that HQ and Heavy start in reserves.

Oh, and unlike the other two Space Marine missions where you always go first if it's your mission, it's a straight up roll off.

 

Anyone besides me think it a bad idea to start a game within rapid fire range of a troop heavy Necron army, or guaranteed assault distance of an ork army with massive boyz squads?

 

There are darn good reasons why I don't think it's a great idea to glom onto this book for tournaments. Yet.

 

Darn good reasons indeed! Well said. Still, it would be fun at 1,500pts

[LardO'Blood]

Can't wait to coerce a friend in getting this! After all, only one person needs the book...

I get tired of regular missions, its to dependent on troop choices and speed...Maybe this will be lessened?

[Grey Mage]

This sounds like the best news for gaming Ive had all month :).

[Giga]

Eh, I was actually hoping these missions would be quite tournament-worthy, but after reading Warp Angel's explanation of the Last Stand mission, my hopes have gone down. Last stand, while it might be entertaining from the perspective of a campaign, is completely useless as far as any serious play is concerned. :/

 

Ah well, I guess once the book comes out the good missions will be separated from the more "flavory" ones, and people will know what makes sense to play and what doesn't.

[JamesI]

Ah well, I guess once the book comes out the good missions will be separated from the more "flavory" ones, and people will know what makes sense to play and what doesn't.

Basically what I expect to happen. If the book has 7-8 missions that are tournament worthy, its a great addition.

[Warp Angel]

After reviewing "Last Stand", you're required to field all units except Fast Attack and units that can Deep Strike. Keep in mind that your opponent can't field HQ or Heavy choices to start the game, so - depending on balance of the army, you might be an easy victory as a Marine player.

 

I think that the mission is still potentially tournament worthy, and the missions, if used in tournament play, will require deviation from cookie cutter armies and require differently balanced lists.

[Sparhawk]

Last stand, while it might be entertaining from the perspective of a campaign, is completely useless as far as any serious play is concerned. :/

 

Not calling you out on this mate I just always chuckle a little when I see the phrase serious play. I know what everyone means by it but I just always get this mental picture of little kids playing a "serious" game of hide-and-seek with their brows furrowed in concentration :) .

 

On the topic at hand I think it will be great fun to throw some new fuel on the mission fire especially for this 3 person campaign I'm planning with some buddies from my gaming group.

[GreatEscape_13]

I think that the mission is still potentially tournament worthy, and the missions, if used in tournament play, will require deviation from cookie cutter armies and require differently balanced lists.

 

That's what I loved about the book when reading through the store copy at my LGS. It looked like it would encourage a more generalized approach to lists rather than the cookie-cutter "tournament winner" lists that people tend to focus upon.

 

I know we'll be using it where I play... just too much fun to ignore.

 

Cheers.

[Giga]

Not calling you out on this mate I just always chuckle a little when I see the phrase serious play.

Well, there are times when you're just fooling around, playing with no real attempt at strategy or finesse, and there are times when you have a nice competitive battle where both players are doing their best to win.

 

This last stand mission, for example, seems like a pure "for fun" mission, as it's too random and depends a lot on the army. For example, orks with nob troops and tons of ork boyz, who also have first turn, are likely going to smash the marine player to pieces. Likewise, tyranids with killy short-range stuff.

 

As I said, it's alright for a joke match every now and then, but there's going to be very little actual play involved because the mission and deployment seem so constricted as to take away lots of options and hence make most last stand battles look very much alike.

 

Of course, all this is just what I gathered from the initial assessment. I'm yet to see the book and/or test out any of the actual missions.

[Warp Angel]

Last stand, while it might be entertaining from the perspective of a campaign, is completely useless as far as any serious play is concerned. :/

 

Not calling you out on this mate I just always chuckle a little when I see the phrase serious play. I know what everyone means by it but I just always get this mental picture of little kids playing a "serious" game of hide-and-seek with their brows furrowed in concentration :) .

 

On the topic at hand I think it will be great fun to throw some new fuel on the mission fire especially for this 3 person campaign I'm planning with some buddies from my gaming group.

 

Oh no, that's okay to have amusing mental images. I've just been playing this game since the Rogue Trader days and know the difference between a throw-away game for fun (or a game against most of the local store mob) and a competitive game against a skilled friend where a ruthless attempt to win (within the rules) is considered fun.

 

The latter is what I refer to as a serious game.

[thade]

Thanks, Warp Angel, for that comprehensive write up; I'm with Grey Mage here. This is great news. I can't wait to try some of these missions and to have a huge table to roll randomly on for games to play. If this does truly force people to have more balanced lists, it will make even the standard missions (when they come up) much more fun.

[Warp Angel]

Thanks, Warp Angel, for that comprehensive write up; I'm with Grey Mage here. This is great news. I can't wait to try some of these missions and to have a huge table to roll randomly on for games to play. If this does truly force people to have more balanced lists, it will make even the standard missions (when they come up) much more fun.

 

I'm in the early stages of putting together a campaign to use all of the GW material, and my initial thoughts can be found here. I think that it allows for the full scope of random mission generation available to us with all of the various books and minimizes the amount of prep time involved, so when you arrive to play, you're ready to play. Any feedback would be appreciated.

[Fintan]

This is the best 40k release in a very, very long time. Big thanks for the synopsis Warp Angel, this is definitely a book I'm going to go out and buy, also looking forward to seeing it shake up competitive play somewhat. I don't know about you boys but I dearly love a challenge and having something that can't always be solved by throwing TH Terminators at it can only be a good thing. Of course this is only going to work if you use the random mission selection rather than choosing by race!

[Warp Angel]

@Fintan:

 

Let me clarify a little bit - the random selection of a "Themed Battle" doesn't quite let you select by race.

 

You and your oppoonent roll off. Winner of that roll off then rolls on THEIR racial mission chart. That means in SM vs. Chaos, you have six possible mission types. In SM vs. SM, only three.

[Fintan]

Are there any generic missions, or missions that you could adapt from other races and still make it playable? If all the missions are entirely race specific then it's not quite as fantastic as I'd thought.

[thade]

My understanding was that there are three new generic missions and three new missions for each race...so yes, there are more generic ones.