Zone Mortalis and Infiltrate/Scout

[Ripper.McGuirl]

Hello! So, I know the rules are just the WD article for now, but we've been trying to get some small ZM games in, since they are so great for a weekday night. One thing I was curious about was how people are handling infiltrators and scout. It doesn't say anything about either one in the deployment section of the mission or the general ZM rules. Would one just run them normally?

The main strangeness comes in with the deployment of the objectives by the defender. The objectives are placed after both sides have deployed, but so are infiltrators. Would you do standard deployment for both sides, then place objectives, then place infiltrators, then resolve scout moves? I opted to just not worry about my infiltrators last night, but if I could have started the game on one of the objectives that obviously would have helped!

That said, I am really enjoying the ZM mechanics in small games (we've done 500 and 750 point games on a 4x4). The reactions being so limited and also different from the main rules, and having so few units, means that the game really goes back and forth quite a bit. In the game last night, the only two units that were fully destroyed were our two warlords, everything else was mauled but still kickin'.

[Xenith]

I can see nothing that would block the use of those rules from the WD article.

 

Objectives are places "one in each of the zones in which neither player has deployed", with the implication being that an objective cannot go into a quarter with modes in it, so I think that it would be:

 

Deploy>objectives>infiltators, however this gives a big bonus to infiltrating troops. Both sides can take infiltrators however. 

 

I would give it a go and see if it plays ok without being too powerful. When I read the rules, I felt the only way to actually win the game as the attacker is to have infiltrators, as it'll take a while to get to objectves and the defender will have built up a lead by then. 

[LameBeard]

Yeah I wasn’t quite sure why the rules are asymmetric - is there any compensation for attacker?

[Xenith]

41 minutes ago, LameBeard said:

I wasn’t quite sure why the rules are asymmetric - is there any compensation for attacker?

 

I think it leans towards the narrative side of things - the attackers breach in a hangar or something and try to get tokey locations, while the defenders are on their home turf and just have to stop the attackers from getting too far into the ship/whatever. I think you could balance it by just adding a 4th objective in the attackers quarter, and say they also need to defend their breach point. 

[Brofist]

My group mostly plays ZM and we love it. That said, I recommend you forget that WD mission exists and just use the missions from the rulebook. We found it to be imbalanced as it too heavily skews towards the defender.

[Ripper.McGuirl]

Yeah, we have played it a couple times and are already looking at it and wanting to axe it. I want to try the Exemplary Battle from the Vengeful Spirit next, I think. I remembered that a lot of the Exemplary Battles had ZM missions and even linked missions in them, but when I went back and looked, I realized the Vengeful Spirit one was the only one written for 2nd.

I do like the idea of just doing the normal missions, though. Do the deployment maps work on on the square boards?

[Brofist]

Haha yeah, its a stinker. Everyone I know who's played it recognized how lopsided it was. Makes you wonder if anyone even played it on the studio side.

 

The deployment maps map over pretty well. It just so happens that I'm compiling a ZM supplement for the Las Vegas open this week. I'll link it in this thread in a day or two. I have 4x4 deployment maps in there you can use, along with few other minor tweaks that you can take or leave.

[Ripper.McGuirl]

Perfecto! I still have all the Heresy ZM packs I did for Adepticon multiple times, but they don't help a lot now without rewriting them all.

I look forward to seeing what you come up with!

[Brofist]

All done. You can find the supplement here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1U6xuspGa8KlSR7dYqIV4Giiig0g9EJPQ/view?usp=sharing

 

Change log to save you a read:

• You get a single T7 model for every 500 points
• Removed non-standard table sizes
• Hard capped reactions to 1 per phase, regardless of any other rules
• All access points must now be designated in such a way that they may be reached from any other access point
• Guided fire cannot be used to make shooting attacks at targets out of line of sight. Instead they make normal attacks.
• Night fighting added, works like in the rulebook except on a 4+ and not a 2+
• For games without ceilings, modified the deep strike assault rules to require concentric circle deployment
• Removed ceiling rolls from missions and moved them into the game 'setup phase' along with placing doors and terrain
• Added square deployment maps based on the ones used for Tactical Strike

 

[Xenith]

4 hours ago, Brofist said:

For games without ceilings, modified the deep strike assault rules to require concentric circle deployment

 

This bit always confused me about the WD ZM rules - if the place has a ceiling, why is teleport deepstrike rules out? It would surely make more sense to block jump pack deepstrike, and allow TDA/teleportarum deepstrike? 

 

Something like

"If the Zone Mortalis has a ceiling, models may not make use of the deep strike rule conferred by a Jump Pack"

Would clear it up.

 

 

[LameBeard]

I was also a little disappointed, but I think it’s a deliberate simplification for the WD rules. Teleporting is so thematic they can bring it back (perhaps with a cost or other nuance) in the final version - gives people like me a reason to buy the supplement.

[Brofist]

I really hope they bring it back :(

[TheNineteenth]

On 11/30/2022 at 7:58 AM, Xenith said:

 

I think it leans towards the narrative side of things - the attackers breach in a hangar or something and try to get tokey locations, while the defenders are on their home turf and just have to stop the attackers from getting too far into the ship/whatever. I think you could balance it by just adding a 4th objective in the attackers quarter, and say they also need to defend their breach point. 

For player experience, I really think that something as asymmetric/impossible as the mission as stated only works inside of a narrative/campaign framework where there is high reward. What's the broad appeal of something so slanted if it is meaningless?

[Xenith]

On 12/2/2022 at 9:47 PM, TheNineteenth said:

What's the broad appeal of something so slanted if it is meaningless?

 

Challenge? I mean, Space Hulk is fun, and that's as asymmetric as anything. Maybe if you have smaller ZM games you can each play as attacker and defender and see who does best. 

[TheNineteenth]

12 hours ago, Xenith said:

 

Challenge? I mean, Space Hulk is fun, and that's as asymmetric as anything. Maybe if you have smaller ZM games you can each play as attacker and defender and see who does best. 

I think there's a case for that in PvE board games like Space Hulk, Doom, etc. In a miniswargame, I think it just feels bad.

[Xenith]

Well, aside from Space Hulk being PvP, it's really up to the players - HH and 40k have the options to be played narratively as well as compeititvely, some may wish to recreate specific events that occured during the heresy, which were hardly balanced. 

 

The whole ZM setting is just that - a narrative construct - you're fighting on a spaceship/factory/whatever with one side invading and one repelling the invaders, with all the rules that entail. If you want less narrative and more balance, you can always strip back the rules and remove mission objectives, terrain etc, as far as you wish to go, as each unbalances the game in favour of one army or the other.