Siege of Cthonia thoughts

[Ripper.McGuirl]

I kind of think basic militia has no business in ZM unless you’re running something narrative. If militia is boarding or defending your space craft or vital installation, something has gone very very wrong. Also, even if you could take 20 man squads, marines are going to run straight through them.

However, if you unleash your ogryn levies to defend your ship, or stuff them in a boarding pod, or send your better equipped grenadiers, that totally makes sense.

[Harrowmaster]

13 minutes ago, Ripper.McGuirl said:

I kind of think basic militia has no business in ZM unless you’re running something narrative. If militia is boarding or defending your space craft or vital installation, something has gone very very wrong. Also, even if you could take 20 man squads, marines are going to run straight through them.

However, if you unleash your ogryn levies to defend your ship, or stuff them in a boarding pod, or send your better equipped grenadiers, that totally makes sense.

I forgot about ogryn conscripts 

[Noserenda]

1 hour ago, Ripper.McGuirl said:

I kind of think basic militia has no business in ZM unless you’re running something narrative. If militia is boarding or defending your space craft or vital installation, something has gone very very wrong. Also, even if you could take 20 man squads, marines are going to run straight through them.

However, if you unleash your ogryn levies to defend your ship, or stuff them in a boarding pod, or send your better equipped grenadiers, that totally makes sense.

I mean, ignoring, "I dont think your army should be able to play this game" as obvious nonsense; you realise a significant number of boarding actions and the like are planned by one side to hit the enemy where they are weakest right? If anything, almost every balanced game is enormously unfluffy because no competent leader ever starts a fair fight! :D Its a game first and an accurate representation of 30k warfare a very, verrrrrry distant last, and that means you should be able to play it with official army lists for that game without houseruling or contorting.

[Ripper.McGuirl]

Yes I realize what you're saying and that's why I started with saying that they should be used in narrative, and made suggestions for how the army list could still be used in a way that would be very easy and work reasonably well. It doesn't require contorting or house rules, it just requires not exactly the same army for both styles of game.
I think a game of marines storming a ship and murdering the hell out of tons of militia would be fun as hell, but I don't think it would be balanced at all and that baseline militia would just get ripped to pieces. 
But, no, I  don't think that every possible build of every army needs to be playable in ZM. That's the whole point of ZM to me, it's a totally different thing and you have to play it differently and use different things than you normally would. 
I tend to look at different game modes as a reason to build and paint different things than I would normally for a full battlefield. Things that may get steamrolled by a tank may be really useful in a hallway. I understand that some people want to use their favorite stuff and want their army to play a certain way, but for my gaming buck, the whole point of having different ways to play like ZM is to..play a different way.

[Stitch5000]

1 hour ago, Noserenda said:

I mean, ignoring, "I dont think your army should be able to play this game" as obvious nonsense; you realise a significant number of boarding actions and the like are planned by one side to hit the enemy where they are weakest right? If anything, almost every balanced game is enormously unfluffy because no competent leader ever starts a fair fight! :D Its a game first and an accurate representation of 30k warfare a very, verrrrrry distant last, and that means you should be able to play it with official army lists for that game without houseruling or contorting.

It is absolutely a game first, and as somebody that has three distinct militia armies, I can tell you, it;s not a very fun game pushing hundreds of 25mm models up and down through the sceneic terrain that exemplifies Zone Mortalis. It gets boring and labourious very rapidly. (Side note... ZM isn't just "boarding actions" so we don;t have to worry too much about the validity of a bunch of ill-equipped, 3rd line defence forces taking to the stars in conquest. They are just in a building on a planet or orbital station).

HH is a narrative game... Militia armies play a narrative role (clearly, given the strength of their list) and definitely are not a competitive choice. That said. I don't see a problem if you want to play amongst knowing and willing opponents that are prepared to watch you act out that role with your army... Just ignore the restriction for the good of the narrative.

On the flip side, I don't think it's fair to NOT restrict that kind of army, as at an event or something similar when you might not knowling be getting ionvolved in that kind of game. I think t;s best that what we have is the default.

[Ripper.McGuirl]

17 minutes ago, Stitch5000 said:

It is absolutely a game first, and as somebody that has three distinct militia armies, I can tell you, it;s not a very fun game pushing hundreds of 25mm models up and down through the sceneic terrain that exemplifies Zone Mortalis. It gets boring and labourious very rapidly. (Side note... ZM isn't just "boarding actions" so we don;t have to worry too much about the validity of a bunch of ill-equipped, 3rd line defence forces taking to the stars in conquest. They are just in a building on a planet or orbital station).

HH is a narrative game... Militia armies play a narrative role (clearly, given the strength of their list) and definitely are not a competitive choice. That said. I don't see a problem if you want to play amongst knowing and willing opponents that are prepared to watch you act out that role with your army... Just ignore the restriction for the good of the narrative.

On the flip side, I don't think it's fair to NOT restrict that kind of army, as at an event or something similar when you might not knowling be getting ionvolved in that kind of game. I think t;s best that what we have is the default.

You are much better at saying things than me! I defer to this explanation.

[NemoVonUtopia]

5 hours ago, Harrowmaster said:

If you take Warrior Elite grenadiers lose support squad. Then you can do ZM as their base size is 10.

 

It's far from ideal but it's the only way to get a militia list into ZM without houserules or fan FAQs.

You could also do Ogryn Conscripts unless I missed that monstrous units are banned too.

[Noserenda]

2 hours ago, Ripper.McGuirl said:

Yes I realize what you're saying and that's why I started with saying that they should be used in narrative, and made suggestions for how the army list could still be used in a way that would be very easy and work reasonably well. It doesn't require contorting or house rules, it just requires not exactly the same army for both styles of game.
I think a game of marines storming a ship and murdering the hell out of tons of militia would be fun as hell, but I don't think it would be balanced at all and that baseline militia would just get ripped to pieces. 
But, no, I  don't think that every possible build of every army needs to be playable in ZM. That's the whole point of ZM to me, it's a totally different thing and you have to play it differently and use different things than you normally would. 
I tend to look at different game modes as a reason to build and paint different things than I would normally for a full battlefield. Things that may get steamrolled by a tank may be really useful in a hallway. I understand that some people want to use their favorite stuff and want their army to play a certain way, but for my gaming buck, the whole point of having different ways to play like ZM is to..play a different way.

So they just shouldnt try and make a balanced game? Its not actually very complicated, even at its most intricate (Which this really isnt) ZM is simply not that different a game from regular AoD that cheaper infantry of all things should be unplayable. Like, this isnt asking for russes or something, this is asking for troops choices to be handled, like what if the marine list banned Tactical squads, or all comp slots had to be filled with Recon marines or forced you to only use Pride of the Legion armies? Its simply bad design, or in this case i think, careless design.
 

2 hours ago, Stitch5000 said:

It is absolutely a game first, and as somebody that has three distinct militia armies, I can tell you, it;s not a very fun game pushing hundreds of 25mm models up and down through the sceneic terrain that exemplifies Zone Mortalis. It gets boring and labourious very rapidly. (Side note... ZM isn't just "boarding actions" so we don;t have to worry too much about the validity of a bunch of ill-equipped, 3rd line defence forces taking to the stars in conquest. They are just in a building on a planet or orbital station).

HH is a narrative game... Militia armies play a narrative role (clearly, given the strength of their list) and definitely are not a competitive choice. That said. I don't see a problem if you want to play amongst knowing and willing opponents that are prepared to watch you act out that role with your army... Just ignore the restriction for the good of the narrative.

On the flip side, I don't think it's fair to NOT restrict that kind of army, as at an event or something similar when you might not knowling be getting ionvolved in that kind of game. I think t;s best that what we have is the default.

Possibly Infantry hordes may not be for you then? :D Ive played a whole crapload of ZM in 1st edition and charging around (divided in the superior 1st ed rules) militia blobs was perfectly fine, arguably easier than on a full tabletop because they were safer to just sit in place somewhere.

You are absolute right about ZM being about fighting in tight confines rather than spaceships though, in the early examples they even used the Amphelion base terrain as examples.

People always trot out the "But its a narrative game" excuse but thats just not supported in the actual game is it? I mean this particular argument is a perfect example that you cant craft a narrative without directly breaking the rules based around one of the literal handful of army lists available in the game.

So what is it? Malice or incompetence of the part of the developers?

[bushman101]

Just curious, does Militia have a lot of options for ZM? Is it hampering or an inconvenience to not have that unit? (I genuinely don't know, since I have no experience with Miltia in Heresy)

[Harrowmaster]

1 hour ago, NemoVonUtopia said:

You could also do Ogryn Conscripts unless I missed that monstrous units are banned too.

Yeah, I forgot abou that. 

[Ripper.McGuirl]

3 hours ago, Noserenda said:

So what is it? Malice or incompetence of the part of the developers?

I think you feel a lot stronger about the rules than I do. If you wanna use a big squad just use a big squad? No one I know would care. I'd say "Hey, I want to use big squads, is that ok?" or "Can we use the combat squad rules?" 
Up until last week, we were doing exactly that, because we also like those rules.
Sorry it's bumming you out, but calling it malice or incompetence is a bit intense for me, so I'm thinking we're probably just not going to see eye to eye on this.
 

[SkimaskMohawk]

2 hours ago, Ripper.McGuirl said:

Sorry it's bumming you out, but calling it malice or incompetence is a bit intense for me, so I'm thinking we're probably just not going to see eye to eye on this.

 

I mean, how do you explain it as a valid design decision? 

 

You can still flood the board with solar aux. Or marine units of 15. It's obviously not a design choice to prevent "having/moving too many models" or whatever stitch said he found unfun to play.

 

Turning a functional army into a "lol narrative fodder for every other army" falls squarely into malice, as it just punishes a portion of the playerbase for their investment up to 6 years ago. 

 

And if it's not a malicious choice to narratively dumpster a faction because "lol it was always a narrative-only  game whadid you expect them to do?", then that leaves.... incompetence in their design process. 

[TheTrans]

 

3 hours ago, Ripper.McGuirl said:

Sorry it's bumming you out, but calling it malice or incompetence is a bit intense for me, so I'm thinking we're probably just not going to see eye to eye on this.
 

 

Mate, the level of malicious intent behind so many rules within 2.0 is something to truly behold, the level of bias throughout its entirety is absolutely staggering. As and end user I should be able to tell you what the rules designers ran in their armies and what they didn't use, but I reckon I could figure it out pretty closely.

Limiting to 15 models..15..really?... is relaly just there to punch min squad sizes of 20 in the face..and what has min 20 squad sizes? oh the same list that got curb stomped pretty much into oblivion and only got rules almost a year after 2.0 released that kind of just act as a vehicle to sell the new Imperial Guard stuff.

The rules writers are very much 'marines only' and don't like anything that can take their power armoured boys off the table. 

Edited June 12, 2023 by TheTrans

[Noserenda]

2 hours ago, TheTrans said:

 

 

Mate, the level of malicious intent behind so many rules within 2.0 is something to truly behold, the level of bias throughout its entirety is absolutely staggering. As and end user I should be able to tell you what the rules designers ran in their armies and what they didn't use, but I reckon I could figure it out pretty closely.

Limiting to 15 models..15..really?... is relaly just there to punch min squad sizes of 20 in the face..and what has min 20 squad sizes? oh the same list that got curb stomped pretty much into oblivion and only got rules almost a year after 2.0 released that kind of just act as a vehicle to sell the new Imperial Guard stuff.

The rules writers are very much 'marines only' and don't like anything that can take their power armoured boys off the table. 

Yeah pretty much this unfortunately.
 

2 hours ago, SkimaskMohawk said:

 

I mean, how do you explain it as a valid design decision? 

 

You can still flood the board with solar aux. Or marine units of 15. It's obviously not a design choice to prevent "having/moving too many models" or whatever stitch said he found unfun to play.

 

Turning a functional army into a "lol narrative fodder for every other army" falls squarely into malice, as it just punishes a portion of the playerbase for their investment up to 6 years ago. 

 

And if it's not a malicious choice to narratively dumpster a faction because "lol it was always a narrative-only  game whadid you expect them to do?", then that leaves.... incompetence in their design process. 

Plus all of this, especially as marines have much bigger bases.
 

5 hours ago, Ripper.McGuirl said:

I think you feel a lot stronger about the rules than I do. If you wanna use a big squad just use a big squad? No one I know would care. I'd say "Hey, I want to use big squads, is that ok?" or "Can we use the combat squad rules?" 
Up until last week, we were doing exactly that, because we also like those rules.
Sorry it's bumming you out, but calling it malice or incompetence is a bit intense for me, so I'm thinking we're probably just not going to see eye to eye on this.
 

Oh its not a huge problem when im playing with my mates, but it is at campaign weekends, and for a bunch of other people playing strangers in stores and the like. Its not so much that i feel particularly strongly, it just bad and awkward, things id like think we could all agree should be avoided from a professional company, especially one where the particular team involved is so completely incapable of admitting fault or formally fixing things.

Im far more bummed out by the sun trying to melt the UK right now lol :) 
 

8 hours ago, bushman101 said:

Just curious, does Militia have a lot of options for ZM? Is it hampering or an inconvenience to not have that unit? (I genuinely don't know, since I have no experience with Miltia in Heresy)

RAW the militia list has no legal troops choices in ZM (All 20+ sized) unless you take certain provenances to move units to that slot or remove support squad, essentially you need to take certain Rites of war to make a legal army.

[Marshal Rohr]

Zone Mortalis capped at 15 in first edition of AoD too. So to say it’s malice is not just silly it’s not based on changing anything. 

Edited June 13, 2023 by Marshal Rohr

[Brofist]

11 hours ago, bushman101 said:

Just curious, does Militia have a lot of options for ZM? Is it hampering or an inconvenience to not have that unit? (I genuinely don't know, since I have no experience with Miltia in Heresy)

 

Militia had a single, half decent list for ZM in 1.0. By half decent I mean you could win half your games with it against pretty decent players.

 

In 2.0 they aren't legal to play in ZM. Even if they were, they really don't have anything that would work well in that environment anymore. Sadly 1.0 was the best we had.

[Bung]

3 hours ago, Marshal Rohr said:

Zone Mortalis capped at 15 in first edition of AoD too. So to say it’s malice is not just silly it’s not based on changing anything. 

 

Sounds more like oversight than anything else.

The books was written last year when militia was just a dever dream in the roadmap. 

Changing the Book was Not possible anymore and noone thought about Zone Mortalis when writting the Militia list.

 

I would rather call it something scrapped together without a lead Design Team that knows the rules.

 

Which becane GWs trademark Game design over the last few years 

[Brofist]

I mean, its no secret that when GW puts something into a .pdf, it goes in there to die. So it really shouldn't be a shocker militia in ZM was not really on the agenda

[Yodhrin]

On 6/6/2023 at 9:15 AM, Gorgoff said:

Nobody wants to play Herohammer.

HH 2ed is about units not about MSU with the hardest stuff you can muster which crush anyone who is stupid enough to play an army made of tacticals. That wasn't fun either. Allowing these things in ZM means that you have to had a stern conversation with your players that they please don't bring this because one wanted to play with tacticals und stuff like that.

Now you have to have the same conversation if you think bringing a Praetor and a consul as part of your starting force is fun. 

It is the same thing just from different directions. 

Is this system perfect?

Nope.

But does it make people play troops more? I would say so. And that is the idea behind it.

Plus the whole reinforcement system should force people to make some hard  decisions in the game based on what's happening on the table.

 

I guess they want players to play around 1000-1500 points worth of models in the ZM even if you have an 2500 points game. You just have more options what to bring.

They changed the way the game functiones and made reinforcements part of the utilities a player has up in their sleeves. 

I don't know how good that will work and I do see some problems just like you but I'll give it a shot before I make my final judgement. 

 

That they removed stratagems is a crime though. 

 

But it doesn't make people bring Troops at all, that's the whole problem, as has been repeatedly spelled out. It makes people bring Elites shifted to Troops via RoW. You're not going to see any more Tacticals now than you did before, you're going to see Terminators and Veterans and the better quality Legion specials that can be so-shifted.

 

You can see what their *intent* was and you're taking it at face value, but the practical implementation of their intent is a failure and that's evident from simply reading the rules and applying basic reasoning; I don't need to run an experiment to know I won't enjoy sticking my hand in a blender. There is no "hard decision" at all, because there's one choice that's so obviously optimal you have to willingly cripple your own army to do anything else. If you can put down a whole army of Warlord+Retinue+shifted-Elites right at the start of turn one, why would you do anything else? There's no tactical benefit to not having the option to deploy maximum possible concentration of force on the table at the start of the game, and so 1-1.5K games all become Pride vs Pride or Pride vs Everything Else That Loses. And it doesn't get better at the higher "intended" point values either, because you'll have only used a few of your shifted not-Troops slots, so why would you spend the rest of your points on anything other than more shifted not-Troops when they're objectively the most efficient use of RP? If you bring a single HS choice, your opponent can bring on three not-Troops units before you've saved up enough RP to deploy it, or bring on one such unit normally and have another come in on your flank or backline.

 

Also, "nobody wants to play herohammer"? Setting aside that "herohammer" has specific connotations for the design of the game beyond simply "more than one HQ choice" that aren't even remotely present in HH, the fact that GW have had to completely rewrite the rules to *force* people to play larger armies with fewer HQs would rather suggest that most people do want to play "herohammer"(ie, ZM as-was).

Edited June 13, 2023 by Yodhrin

[Stitch5000]

18 hours ago, Ripper.McGuirl said:

You are much better at saying things than me! I defer to this explanation.

My spelling/typing is however a complete mess. 

15 hours ago, Noserenda said:

So they just shouldnt try and make a balanced game? Its not actually very complicated, even at its most intricate (Which this really isnt) ZM is simply not that different a game from regular AoD that cheaper infantry of all things should be unplayable. Like, this isnt asking for russes or something, this is asking for troops choices to be handled, like what if the marine list banned Tactical squads, or all comp slots had to be filled with Recon marines or forced you to only use Pride of the Legion armies? Its simply bad design, or in this case i think, careless design.
 

Possibly Infantry hordes may not be for you then? :D Ive played a whole crapload of ZM in 1st edition and charging around (divided in the superior 1st ed rules) militia blobs was perfectly fine, arguably easier than on a full tabletop because they were safer to just sit in place somewhere.

You are absolute right about ZM being about fighting in tight confines rather than spaceships though, in the early examples they even used the Amphelion base terrain as examples.

People always trot out the "But its a narrative game" excuse but thats just not supported in the actual game is it? I mean this particular argument is a perfect example that you cant craft a narrative without directly breaking the rules based around one of the literal handful of army lists available in the game.

So what is it? Malice or incompetence of the part of the developers?

If you want a balanced game, try looking at Kill Team, where a group of future policemen can board a starship and beat up 6 of the finest, most technologically advanced warriors the Imperium has to offer. 

"Narratively" I can't think of an example where militia troops don't just die in droves at the hands of far superior warriors though. Even when the militia are depicted as being on the winning side, their bodies provide a carpet over which superior warriors march. Why should that tenet be broken for the sake of balance in a narrative game?

It could be argued that Militia should do *something different* in the context of a tabletop game, and their win conditions could be skewed to a different objective... That didn;t go down so well with the previous Ruinstorm list in HH1.0 though, so might not be the way to go here. Instead, militia are pretty good at mobbing objectives with Line units that cost nothing... So MSU spam of grenadiers might actually be one of the few actually proficient lists, providing you can get enough of them on the board. 
 

15 hours ago, bushman101 said:

Just curious, does Militia have a lot of options for ZM? Is it hampering or an inconvenience to not have that unit? (I genuinely don't know, since I have no experience with Miltia in Heresy)

No. Not a lot. 
 

9 hours ago, TheTrans said:

The rules writers are very much 'marines only' and don't like anything that can take their power armoured boys off the table. 

Not shocking, given the entire context of the game.

Edited June 13, 2023 by Stitch5000

[Gorgoff]

3 hours ago, Yodhrin said:

 

But it doesn't make people bring Troops at all, that's the whole problem, as has been repeatedly spelled out. It makes people bring Elites shifted to Troops via RoW.

 

People who max out their lists probably will do that and nothing else, yes, but I don't play against people with a WAAC mindset.

3 hours ago, Yodhrin said:

You're not going to see any more Tacticals now than you did before, you're going to see Terminators and Veterans and the better quality Legion specials that can be so-shifted.

 

Because seeing a lot of Terminators and Veterans in ZM is super fluffy and therefore... bad? 

And don't see the point here because it was just like that in last edition. Tacticals were chaff units which barely got taken in ZM.

3 hours ago, Yodhrin said:

 

You can see what their *intent* was and you're taking it at face value, but the practical implementation of their intent is a failure and that's evident from simply reading the rules and applying basic reasoning;

If you max out your list, yes, but I don't play against people with a WAAC mindset.

 

3 hours ago, Yodhrin said:

I don't need to run an experiment to know I won't enjoy sticking my hand in a blender.

 

Luckily you don't have to. Change the rules, play the WD verwion, play 1ed, don't olay at all. It is your choice and your hobby as well.

3 hours ago, Yodhrin said:

 

There is no "hard decision" at all, because there's one choice that's so obviously optimal you have to willingly cripple your own army to do anything else.

 

I disagree 

There are 18 legion, mechanicum, SA, IA, Custodes, Sisters and Demons plus the possibility of allies, AL taking other legions units etc pp and therefore the isn't "one choice"

That's just nonsense.

And beside my point completely because I was talking about playing 2000 points from which you have to choose when to bring what and that depends highly on a lot of factors and change from game to game. If you can't see that I strongly recommend play the game against different legions with different army list  with different missions and you will see what I mean.

Or you won't which wouldn't invalidate my point. It would only mean that you simply don't see what I mean.

3 hours ago, Yodhrin said:

If you can put down a whole army of Warlord+Retinue+shifted-Elites right at the start of turn one, why would you do anything else?

People who max out their lists probably will do that and nothing else, yes, but I don't play against people with a WAAC mindset.

3 hours ago, Yodhrin said:

There's no tactical benefit to not having the option to deploy maximum possible concentration of force on the table at the start of the game, and so 1-1.5K games all become Pride vs Pride or Pride vs Everything Else That Loses. And it doesn't get better at the higher "intended" point values either, because you'll have only used a few of your shifted not-Troops slots, so why would you spend the rest of your points on anything other than more shifted not-Troops when they're objectively the most efficient use of RP?

 

You seems to be a clever guy and I believe that you are more than capable to think of situations where it is preferable to flank a unit of tacticals instead of bring macho unit #1 in your own deployment zone.

3 hours ago, Yodhrin said:

Also, "nobody wants to play herohammer"? 

Most people don't, yes. 

Some WAAC players obviously do and did which made ZM rather boring and predictable. 

But again I will test it and invite everyone to do just that.

Open minded of course because if you really want to hate something nothing will stop you from doing it but if you put that "BUT THAT IS MORE EFFECTIVE" nonsense aside you could suddenly have a good time and just have fun with your friends.

Edited June 13, 2023 by Gorgoff

[Stitch5000]

9 hours ago, Yodhrin said:

If you can put down a whole army of Warlord+Retinue+shifted-Elites right at the start of turn one, why would you do anything else?

What if I wanted to flank units of scoring troops to capture objectives rather than spend turns snaking around a labrynth of terrain to achieve nothing?

People seem to think that if you put a big beatstick unit on a board you can dominate everything on the board, but there's nothing further from the truth if you actually play any ZM on an actual dense board. You can very easily cut stuff out of play by avoiding it. 

[SkimaskMohawk]

5 hours ago, Stitch5000 said:

Why should that tenet be broken for the sake of balance in a narrative game?

 

The tenet that was made up a year ago? Because militia were able to participate in the game on their own merits for the previous 7 years before that.

 

The narrative game statement is just so tired at this point. It wasn't; the narrative elements were separated to the point where they FAQd the relics to narrative campaign only back in the day because they upset the balance too hard. People used to call a spade a spade; if the rules sucked and were unbalanced then it was bad design. And then someone rewrote the rules to how they wanted the game to be played.  

[TheTrans]

14 hours ago, Stitch5000 said:

Not shocking, given the entire context of the game.

Actually a bit shocking given the game was pretty even keeled(ish) in its first iteration, most forces could bloody the nose of their opponent.

Like honestly man, with 2.0 it seems like only SoH and IF exist.

[Gorgoff]

5 hours ago, TheTrans said:

Actually a bit shocking given the game was pretty even keeled(ish) in its first iteration, most forces could bloody the nose of their opponent.

Like honestly man, with 2.0 it seems like only SoH and IF exist.

So far.

We will see if GW starts doing other legions as well. 

I am not against books like this which have a strong theme around only some armies in general. 

But please no more IF and Sons of Horus please. ;)