Zone Mortalis set up resources

[Cleon]

After a very unsatisfying game of Zone Mortalis, I could do with some help. 

 

It was not apparent (at least to us) when I set the table up, but what we ended up with three separated choke points where it was obvious whoever took the next step forward was going to take it in the face the following turn (either from a charge, or from point blank rapid fire), with no real way to maneuver out of or around the situation.

 

What I'm hoping is that someone has either a repository of Zone Mortalis set ups, or some examples of tables using the GW sized/styled walls that have previously lead to good games so I can try and get more of a feel for how to set a board up. Can anyone help?

[MDops]

I know it's not 30k but it might be worth looking at the Boarding action missions in 40k. From what I have seen the terrain is fairly prescribed and might be able to give you an idea of what GW might expect.

 

The other option might be to look at some youtubers play and check out their set up. I know MWG has done some and I'm sure there are others.

[Xenith]

15 hours ago, Cleon said:

we ended up with three separated choke points where it was obvious whoever took the next step forward was going to take it in the face the following turn (either from a charge, or from point blank rapid fire), with no real way to maneuver out of or around the situation

 

Such is the nature of boarding actions? I mean they're cinematic and narrative, but like the rest of the HH missions they can be unbalanced and often lead to a stalemate/no-win situation. The get you by ZM mission is also very biased to the defender, as it should be. Did you set up the terrain as described, alternating putting a piece down each? You can maybe void that unless the defender is specifically creating choke points? Maybe agree to a setup before the game? But I think chokepoints are the nature of ZM. 

[Cleon]

We didn't play the given mission, it didn't look fun. We decided VPs for killing units and vps for getting into the opponents deployment area.

 

Because we were playing on my table, to save time I set up a map that I thought looked fine, I can't imagine setting it up a piece at a time leads is actually practical, maybe it is if you are using the pre-set FW tiles, but using the columns and walls that would take ages and almost certainly lead to a mess.

 

We gave the set up a once over, but after two turns of movement it became clear that there was no way to get around 'whoever advances further next, loses.' If that happens on all games I can't imagine anyone would ever play ZM so I was hoping to see what other people had done.

[LameBeard]

I don’t have any immediate links, but I have a few thoughts, based on playing similar games (not much ZM in 2.0 yet)

 

The choke points are inevitable pretty much whatever set-up you have, and fairly predictable, without a lavish 2-storey board (bridges/tunnels effectively - not practical for most people.

 

The problem may be worse in 2.0 because there is less random movement, less likely for troops to get stranded where they didn’t want to be.

 

Infiltrators / outflank may help. We already agreed in another thread that those rules stay “on” in ZM.  No room for infiltrators? Board might be too small. Outflankers take too long to get to the action? Board may be too big.

 

Reintroducing terminator teleport deep strike might help - needs a risk/reward mechanic like in 1.0, possibly a cost like in the Rite of War. Totally fluffy and bound to reappear in the “full” rules.

 

More specifically in your case, what stopped the unit that was advancing first getting their own rapid fire in? I think the general idea would be to threaten advance on both fronts, force out the (single!) reaction one side, get first shot/charge on the other. I assume this was the designer’s intent to get balance. Tough choices and risk/reward when the charge might not come off.

 

I’m sure you thought of that so maybe the fire corridor was just too good around that corner? Need a balance between some good fire lanes and some areas of dense terrain (twisty corners). Difficult terrain, barricades, night fight areas etc can also shift combat/shoot balance a little.

 

Most ZM boards will be based on a grid. I prefer that grid at a slight angle to deployment - e.g. up to 30 degrees.  It just seems to make for a few more interesting choices, although you do have to be careful you haven’t squeezed everyone into the middle of the board at the half-way point.

 

If all else fails, charge round that corner all guns blazing. It will tell a great story and still be fun, even if you lose.

[Gorgoff]

How big was your table in total?

 

[Cleon]

Our table ended up just under 4 foot, by just under 3, so was possibly a little narrow.

 

What we ended up with was on one side a corridor that was just too long to move through, so whoever went into it ended up stranded and couldn't open the door at the far end and received a full volley in the face when the other side then moved up.

 

In the centre we had both sides with a Contemptor and a squad of Cataphracts and not enough room to advance with both at once, so whoever lead would be jumped 2:1 as both sides were hanging back where they could engage with both units.

 

On the other side it's possible the advance could have worked, but reaction fire broke the advancing unit and their support didn't have the move to get round in the same turn.

 

Part of my issue is the other Legion was Iron hands, so getting in my rapid fire with effectivly lasguns, didn't seem worth exposing myself to a stationary fury of the legion for if the charge wasn't a pretty sure thing.

Edited January 24, 2023 by Cleon

[Brofist]

Honestly chokepoints are a main feature of ZM, its supposed to be a claustrophobic meatgrinder to some extent, but I get what you are saying.

 

There are lots of good suggestions itt. I'll echo that a larger table (standard size was, and really remains, 4x4 unless you're playing puny sized games) will help a lot. Corridors of death can be fun, but usually you want just one or two crossing each other. It plays best as labyrinth without many doors, imo

[Cleon]

We played 1000 points, I'm thinking both from digesting on it more and from the above the issue was at least partly the distance between the doors - advancing towards a door you cant get through seems a really bad option compared to letting the enemy do the same.

[LameBeard]

I can’t remember the exact rules on doors but I remember we played a more permissive house rule on opening/closing them. 

[Brofist]

After playing 10 games of ZM over the weekend, I would not recommend using many, if any, doors in ZM. It swings the game heavily into favoring melee, which is already strong in ZM

[Cleon]

As my main annoyance with the GW ZM kit is that you get as much 'door' footprint as you do 'wall' (6 lengths), though using it all as wall might actually help...

[Wolf Lord Loki]

When I built some ZM board I tried to arrange for 2-3 routes in each 2*3 section one straight ish and wide enough for dreads and some narrower infantry only routes

 

I didn't make any doors but there are rooms and dead ends

 

My thought would be give each side set objectives that are different to each other. Scoring VP for killing other units just means the first to kill wins.

 

Perhaps something like:

Attacker need to exit units via point X and scores point per unit getting through

Defender needs to get to the damage control room (y) and gains points per turn they can control things on the ship (the unit running damage control is fully occupied doing that and will not initiate attacks against other units but will defend themselves normally)

 

Then you put each objective away from the other so you have to make a decision about how many units to divert to stopping the other person's goals