Siege of Cthonia thoughts

[Stitch5000]

12 hours ago, Ripper.McGuirl said:

 You could also just say their movement benefit is halved, or their not allowed to go through doors when boosting.

Half the movement of a Warhawk jump pack is 6", which is largely less than the movement characteristic of anything that is eligible to have one. 

Just do as the rules say, don't activate the jump pack and use the standard movement characteristic of the model... (7" or 8" if you have White Scars)

That, combined with the ability to drop units in the flank or rear for one reinforcement less than it would normally cost makes it pretty easy to get where you need to be on a 4x4.

I'm kinda shocked to hear about gaming groups that won;t let you run without ceilings and will still run fulmentarus lists though... Are you sure they are your friends? 

[Ripper.McGuirl]

Fulmentarus really seem like a constant issue that people run into. I’m glad no one near me plays Ultras and I am the Alpha Legion player and have zero interest in them.

Also when I was spitballing ideas for jump packs I meant you would kind of halve the difference between your base move and the jump move. So 9” or 10” or something. Just enough to slow you down but still make them do something.

Or you could say the roof prevents them from moving over other units.

Regardless, it seems like their group wont want to go in that direction so Bro is left with absolutely amazing models he worked hard on that he can’t use and that does really suck.

[Gorgoff]

Just do it like in 1ed. If you use your jump pack roll for dangerous terrain. 

Done. 

[Ripper.McGuirl]

Yeah there are lots of fixes if they want to go that way. I get what GW was going for thematically but I also get being bummed you can’t use your stuff. i am sure Brofist and Spagunk will sort it out, they are both master hobby veterans.

[Stitch5000]

2 hours ago, Ripper.McGuirl said:

Fulmentarus really seem like a constant issue that people run into. I’m glad no one near me plays Ultras and I am the Alpha Legion player and have zero interest in them.

Also when I was spitballing ideas for jump packs I meant you would kind of halve the difference between your base move and the jump move. So 9” or 10” or something. Just enough to slow you down but still make them do something.

Or you could say the roof prevents them from moving over other units.

Regardless, it seems like their group wont want to go in that direction so Bro is left with absolutely amazing models he worked hard on that he can’t use and that does really suck.

With the measuring process in ZM, Fulmentaris Guided Fire shots are going to have to take a convoluted route so should be less effective, regardless of ceilings or not. 

Jump packs have a bit of a benefit in ceilingless ZM environs, but the rules are certainly modular enough to be used to represent ship interiors to dense woodlands and forests to trench networks, so I don't think people should be limited to just thinking "labrynthine ship interior". 

[Ripper.McGuirl]

2 minutes ago, Stitch5000 said:

With the measuring process in ZM, Fulmentaris Guided Fire shots are going to have to take a convoluted route so should be less effective, regardless of ceilings or not. 

Jump packs have a bit of a benefit in ceilingless ZM environs, but the rules are certainly modular enough to be used to represent ship interiors to dense woodlands and forests to trench networks, so I don't think people should be limited to just thinking "labrynthine ship interior". 

I agree. Our ZM games include ship interiors, ship exteriors, and craggy canyons, to name a few. We've also done city fights when you can get enough big blocky in tact buildings on the board. All kinds of room to play around with the rule set. But, not all groups like doing that.

[sarabando]

On 5/30/2023 at 1:29 PM, Xenith said:

Didn't know bikes were allowed in ZM1! Sad if the case, but in this instance I understand why they did it. Don't see many biker gangs getting into a boarding torpedo  Bit of a double punch with the (what seems like a) nerf to bikes in 2.0. 

The scars literally drove jetbikes between ships in one of the scars books XD

[bushman101]

Just got my book in the mail, and it looks pretty good.

I like that there is a section describing what each Legion/Faction is doing in the Heresy despite not actively participating in the Seige of Cthonia.

I'll really need to sit down and read the ZM rules and check for changes.

I'll probably never use any of the new units in the book. I play BA, so the Decurions have little appeal. And the BA Inductii are just bad 

[Brofist]

8 hours ago, Stitch5000 said:

The rules literally state that you cannot shoot through walls. 

"If a path cannot be traced between two models due to intervening Wall Terrain and Door Terrain in the Closed state, the effects of any rule that affects models within a defined range that does not require line of sight do not apply and no attack can be made using a weapon with the Barrage, Guided Fire or any other rule that allows attacks to be made without line of sight."

 

I missed this! Thanks for pointing it out

 

e: Reading this though, it means you can shoot through walls if a door is open

Edited May 31, 2023 by Brofist

[arnesh88]

I like how they are doing the core missions for the most part, but there are some aspects that I have criticisms on that my group will likely change for our games.

 

Likes:

- Limited mission maps. For games that we want to do more narratively, we'll probably pick from the Main Rule Book. But for quick pick up games where we just want to be a bit more competitive or test out our new lists, we'll go with the 3 from Cthonia.

- Sudden Death. I have a personal hatred for games/missions that win the game because one side is annihilated. It leads to list building that hit either extremes of defense or offense, and then armies start looking the same, or you paint and build an army that fits your narrative that looks great on the table, only for you to pick it back up by end of turn 2. Getting 1 VP seems fair.

- Missions 1-3. I like missions that fight for that middle ground or at least encourage getting out of your deployment zone, and rewards for trying to grab for objectives earlier rather than waiting until the end of game. Usually makes it less one-sided against gunlines.

 

Critiques:

- Strategic Advantage. Whoever gets strategic advantage has a lot of advantages going their way. Setting down objectives first (and possibly last if it's an odd number of objectives), decide if night fighting is/isn't even going to happen, getting first turn, choosing deployment zone, etc. The main drawbacks of Strategic Advantage are Deploying First (2nd player counter deploys) and Sieze the Initiative, but I don't think these are enough to make up for Strategic Advantage. Odd-number of objectives and deciding Night Fighting are the biggest advantages in my eyes.

- Missions 4 & 5. I've played various versions of mission 4 in other game systems, and it usually devolves into kill points. Mission 5 is way too random. I played a version of this at Adepticon, and won the game because the objective kept moving further into my deployment zone. Not fun moments. Our group will likely just keep a list of our favorite 6 missions to roll for from all books being released and go from there.

- Break Their Ranks and First Strike secondaries. If I'm understanding this correctly, if a player goes first and removes an elite unit, as an example, they just automatically get 4 VP? That's really harsh. Break Their Ranks seems to be enough, First Strike seems excessive.

 

Not sure, need to test:

- 4 turns. On the one hand, it gets players moving their armies sooner, and usually games are decided by turn 4. On the other, there has been enough times where what happens turn 5 changes the outcome of the game from my experience. We don't like including "random last turn rolls", as it becomes a feels-bad moment, so this is a wait-and-see for me.

 

Edited May 31, 2023 by arnesh88

[SkimaskMohawk]

21 minutes ago, arnesh88 said:

I like how they are doing the core missions for the most part, but there are some aspects that I have criticisms on that my group will likely change for our games.

 

Likes:

- Limited mission maps. For games that we want to do more narratively, we'll probably pick from the Main Rule Book. But for quick pick up games where we just want to be a bit more competitive or test out our new lists, we'll go with the 3 from Cthonia.

- Sudden Death. I have a personal hatred for games/missions that win the game because one side is annihilated. It leads to list building that hit either extremes of defense or offense, and then armies start looking the same, or you paint and build an army that fits your narrative that looks great on the table, only for you to pick it back up by end of turn 2. Getting 1 VP seems fair.

- Missions 1-3. I like missions that fight for that middle ground or at least encourage getting out of your deployment zone, and rewards for trying to grab for objectives earlier rather than waiting until the end of game. Usually makes it less one-sided against gunlines.

 

Critiques:

- Strategic Advantage. Whoever gets strategic advantage has a lot of advantages going their way. Setting down objectives first (and possibly last if it's an odd number of objectives), decide if night fighting is/isn't even going to happen, getting first turn, choosing deployment zone, etc. The main drawbacks of Strategic Advantage are Deploying First (2nd player counter deploys) and Sieze the Initiative, but I don't think these are enough to make up for Strategic Advantage. Odd-number of objectives and deciding Night Fighting are the biggest advantages in my eyes.

- Missions 4 & 5. I've played various versions of mission 4 in other game systems, and it usually devolves into kill points. Mission 5 is way too random. I played a version of this at Adepticon, and won the game because the objective kept moving further into my deployment zone. Not fun moments. Our group will likely just keep a list of our favorite 6 missions to roll for from all books being released and go from there.

- Break Their Ranks and First Strike secondaries. If I'm understanding this correctly, if a player goes first and removes an elite unit, as an example, they just automatically get 4 VP? That's really harsh. Break Their Ranks seems to be enough, First Strike seems excessive.

 

Not sure, need to test:

- 4 turns. On the one hand, it gets players moving their armies sooner, and usually games are decided by turn 4. On the other, there has been enough times where what happens turn 5 changes the outcome of the game from my experience. We don't like including "random last turn rolls", as it becomes a feels-bad moment, so this is a wait-and-see for me.

 

 

Played mission 1 on Sunday so I have some limited answers/experience.

 

•  Despite the objectives going in no man's land in mission 1, they can still go realllllly close to the deployment zone. And the person who can control the majority of their placement is the one who then picks the sides, allowing them to have a real advantage when it comes to controlling the objectives. 6th edition had this same problem, where objectives were placed after knowing deployment zones; it was changed for a reason.
• Break their ranks has the caveat of "remaining models", implying the unit needs to have taken some casualties first. But ya, killing an elite unit with two shooting attacks on turn 1 seems to be enough to net you 4 VP. 
• The end state of the game wouldn't have changed much if it had gone to turn 5 or 6; there was only so much left due to how hotly contested the objectives were.
• Glad they cut the wonky deployment maps; I've never once rolled ambush where even one player wanted to keep it, and the diagonal one is a bit torturous to measure properly without the corner measurements...which were never included even after 8th started doing it.
• Kinda touched on it with my first point, but strategic advantage is really brutal. Like unfairly strong in the advantages it grants and the momentum you can swing from going first. 

[Spagunk]

9 hours ago, Stitch5000 said:

Just do as the rules say, don't activate the jump pack and use the standard movement characteristic of the model... (7" or 8" if you have White Scars)

That, combined with the ability to drop units in the flank or rear for one reinforcement less than it would normally cost makes it pretty easy to get where you need to be on a 4x4.

 

But then I could just save the extra 45+ pts and go with despoilers instead. In fact, that's just about the cost of a despoiler squad plus an apothecary which is probably a lot more useful in certain circumstances.

Because the limits specifically state you cannot ACTIVATE equipment that grants a movement bonus, you can't really benefit from the jump pack for anything other than deployment. The important part of using jump packs in ZM is not just the movement but also the charge bonus which really helps against certain reactions. 

Again, I am not saying the rule sucks but rather the situations caused by the rules really stink. I get why but it's not ideal and hurts some really useful units. I know I for one am going to miss my "suddenly incaendius dreadnought" charging 12 inches with Hammer of Wrath(2). 

[Brofist]

Combined with no major changes to shooting, its hurt unit diversity. You're now looking at even less units that will excel in the melee dominant ZM environment.

[Ripper.McGuirl]

27 minutes ago, Brofist said:

Combined with no major changes to shooting, its hurt unit diversity. You're now looking at even less units that will excel in the melee dominant ZM environment.

Out of curiosity what would have liked to see for shooting?

[Brofist]

I don't have a perfect answer, but I'd like to have seen something like the old reaction fire mechanic brought back, or at least the reactions modified in a way that wouldn't punish shooting units while favoring melee units.

 

The displace reaction in ZM exemplifies this: you're often displacing an enemy unit towards you or out of LOS after firing upon it, discouraging shooting. Meanwhile, getting snap fired at when you move within range as a melee unit is just an annoyance. With these reactions, plus doorways, new WS chart, assault out of reserves, granting outflank to units for CP, multi wound models, etc etc... ZM has been entrenched as a dominantly melee environment. Not to say you can't make a shooting unit work, but the top lists from the WD rules were melee focused for a reason, with shooting functioning more as area denial.

 

I know that regular games favor shooting, so having ZM be melee focused is both fluffy and a relief. That said, I believe that good design should give room for both types of play. Right now you wouldn't want to bring a very shooting list into ZM unless you had a very specific plan in mind.

Edited May 31, 2023 by Brofist

[arnesh88]

3 hours ago, SkimaskMohawk said:

Despite the objectives going in no man's land in mission 1, they can still go realllllly close to the deployment zone. And the person who can control the majority of their placement is the one who then picks the sides, allowing them to have a real advantage when it comes to controlling the objectives. 6th edition had this same problem, where objectives were placed after knowing deployment zones; it was changed for a reason.

Agreed. That's the first thing that crossed my mind. Despite it being called "Strategic Advantage", I think my group is going to have the player going second to decide deployment zones to offset this advantage.

[SkimaskMohawk]

32 minutes ago, arnesh88 said:

Agreed. That's the first thing that crossed my mind. Despite it being called "Strategic Advantage", I think my group is going to have the player going second to decide deployment zones to offset this advantage.

 

Yea there's having an advantage....and then theres playing at a leg up the entire time. 

 

Imo the healthiest time for pickup missions was 7th edition, pre-Tempest, when people just used the 40k missions. You rolled mission, rolled off to place majority of objectives, rolled for deployment map, rolled off for sides, rolled off to deploy first, and needed a 4+ to bring in Night. It was a lot more honest and only had one really bad mission (looking at you relic).

[Marshal Mittens]

Overall I really like it. It's rules light, in terms of new units, but it has a TON of lore, and I like the crusade and Zone Mortalis rules. I don't generally buy campaign books but I like this one. 

[Ripper.McGuirl]

17 hours ago, Brofist said:

I don't have a perfect answer, but I'd like to have seen something like the old reaction fire mechanic brought back, or at least the reactions modified in a way that wouldn't punish shooting units while favoring melee units.

 

The displace reaction in ZM exemplifies this: you're often displacing an enemy unit towards you or out of LOS after firing upon it, discouraging shooting. Meanwhile, getting snap fired at when you move within range as a melee unit is just an annoyance. With these reactions, plus doorways, new WS chart, assault out of reserves, granting outflank to units for CP, multi wound models, etc etc... ZM has been entrenched as a dominantly melee environment. Not to say you can't make a shooting unit work, but the top lists from the WD rules were melee focused for a reason, with shooting functioning more as area denial.

 

I know that regular games favor shooting, so having ZM be melee focused is both fluffy and a relief. That said, I believe that good design should give room for both types of play. Right now you wouldn't want to bring a very shooting list into ZM unless you had a very specific plan in mind.

Yeah, this is all valid. I do tend to land on "yeah, and that's good, ZM should be brutal and close", personally. I did have good luck the couple times I've tried my Alphas in ZM and really tried to max their shooting and shiftiness in general. I will say it seems to me the stuff that is already good at shooting is still good at shooting in ZM.

The middle zone of things should probably lean towards punching rather than shooting. That said, I have been devastated by losing a marine or two to bolter shots, failing my leadership, running, triggering another unit's LD check from blind panic, them also running, and all of a sudden my whole left side of the board is annihilated because I got shot by a breacher squad's bolters.
I think I'll start a new ZM topic once I get some games in.

[Petitioner's City]

22 hours ago, sarabando said:

The scars literally drove jetbikes between ships in one of the scars books XD

 

But left them once they arrived...

[Doghouse]

Mine arrived today, it's a very nice book with lots of lore but I was hoping for full colour plates of all the Legion Inductii. I have only flicked through it a few times but only seeing maybe six or seven examples which is disappointing..  

[Ripper.McGuirl]

13 minutes ago, Doghouse said:

Mine arrived today, it's a very nice book with lots of lore but I was hoping for full colour plates of all the Legion Inductii. I have only flicked through it a few times but only seeing maybe six or seven examples which is disappointing..  

I do agree there was less of the color plates than I would have liked. They also are less detailed.

[dickyelsdon]

15 hours ago, Doghouse said:

Mine arrived today, it's a very nice book with lots of lore but I was hoping for full colour plates of all the Legion Inductii. I have only flicked through it a few times but only seeing maybe six or seven examples which is disappointing..  

 

Yes, even the heraldry headshots of the legions shown in the Adepticon preview is not in the book.  I really hope they do a visions of heresy book again with all the new art they have created, it would be such a brilliant resource for ideas.

[Marshal Rohr]

I imagine inductii will be a staple of the setting going forward and we will see inductii color plates in books about those legions. As in, I don’t think this is the only book we will see them in. Maybe next time we get assault and heavy Support inductii or something. 

[Cactus]

The Dark Angels inductii could also be played as the legion at the very start of the Great Crusade, before the hexagramaton was fully evolved and volkites still were the main infantry gun. If you fancied playing games set earlier in the timeline.