SR2012 is up!

[DarkLegacy]

As long as you're already editing shouldn't "Dual Scenario" be "Duel Scenario" ? Or am I missing what in those scenarios would make them described as being 'dual'?

Dual scenarios have two objective spots to control, hence "dual". You have two areas to go after.

[Konradexius]

I'm sorry, but if you want your games to be a mindless bloodshed in the midle of the table, then you should consider the possibility that you've picked wrong game. I know some others which will be more to your taste.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Most of my best games have been long, visceral back-and-forths that whittled down both sides to the bone before someone pulled off that clutch charge/power attack/whatever. Meanwhile, winning or losing because two or three stray models who occupied the space around an arbitrarily designated "flag" get picked off is a bland, tasteless and ultimately unsatisfying way for a game to end.

I understand the Warhammer games have objectives on the map as a standard rule of play. That was one of the reasons I started THIS game instead; perhap's you're the one in the wrong place?

[Hasten]

Meanwhile, winning or losing because two or three stray models who occupied the space around an arbitrarily designated "flag" get picked off is a bland, tasteless and ultimately unsatisfying way for a game to end.

I understand the Warhammer games have objectives on the map as a standard rule of play. That was one of the reasons I started THIS game instead; perhap's you're the one in the wrong place?

The fact that SR is entirely comprised of scenarios does undercut your argument that scenario victory conditions are somehow the wrong way to play.

The fact that you personally prefer assassination as the only victory condition is fine. It's also fine that others prefer a mix.

Honestly most of the 2011 scenarios were pretty difficult to win by in any case (in my experience). I'm looking forward to trying out some of the 2012 and seeing if they're a bit more exciting. Certainly the interactive objectives look like they'll add some interesting dynamics.

-H

[Jestor]

You have no idea what you're talking about. Most of my best games have been long, visceral back-and-forths that whittled down both sides to the bone before someone pulled off that clutch charge/power attack/whatever. Meanwhile, winning or losing because two or three stray models who occupied the space around an arbitrarily designated "flag" get picked off is a bland, tasteless and ultimately unsatisfying way for a game to end.

I understand the Warhammer games have objectives on the map as a standard rule of play. That was one of the reasons I started THIS game instead; perhap's you're the one in the wrong place?

I think you are missing one of the points of the scenario system. It is there to give players an option to win with in the time limits without limiting armies to strictly assassination.

If you want to play long, drawn out assassination games, no one is stopping you. They just aren't friendly to the tournament environment.

[BlueSkies]

Man, that sounds perfect. Scenarios shouldn't be the primary win condition, it should be the method used to prevent people from playing keep away or VP sniping. Have yourself a real game of warmachine for a few turns like it should be, then fight over scenarios to settle the stalemate.

The problem of SR1 was the fact that Scenario took so long to complete, uf you denied your opponent 1 turn of not scoring, you never need to worry about the scenario again, which led to a lot of VP sniping and ppl running several models out of range to prevent VP snipe wins. Basically, all the flaws you don't want happened in SR1.

Making the scenario with no win condition apart from casterkill was perhaps the biggest mistake PP have made so far (and yes, I'm inclined to say it's a bigger one than BLT), and I'm very happy they fixed it.

Yet making a scenario that doesn't have an realistic and quick alternative win condition is flawed as well as SR2 demostrated. In SR2, privateer press scenario and Eliminated caster kill completely. The only alternative to win was destroy the oppoosing army completely. A true example of want happen, King of the Hill, player 1 scores a cp due to having AD on the first turn. No one scores cp for the rest of the game. Player 2 literally destroys player 1 except for a single mortar crew (caster was killed). Player 2 lost the game. This actually happened in a tournament and a large chunk of my play group drop WM during SR2 (over 10 players) b/c how stupid and unfun the game was.

SR3 is probably the best SR just mk I power creep and rules bloat killed it. But the SR itself was good especially the predefined maps which I still pull up every now and again. I think that's a testament of that system b/c I still see ppl talking about these maps.

2011 SR was good at v2. V3 reversed all the good it had. I still hate anything that involved the Grind ball so I'm glad it was removed.

This SR reminds me of Hacksaw's first scenario attempts before SR (kinda reminds me of the grab/rescue mission of the wreck). They are needlessly complex. The packet itself is too wordy, and imo can be trimmed down to make it clearer. Like instead of the overly wordy game time section, just make a clear/better chart. Protrays and yields the same info, but will be easy to understand. Explaining the logic is unnecessary and puts a glob of text that doesn't need to be there.


I've played a few games (non radial and flank atm) and they are ok so far. I haven't played enough of SR2012 to give it a fair review, but at this point, I don't mind it for causual play, but so far I like SR2011 better b/c its simlicity and ease of execution for tournament play.

[Top]

Dual scenarios have two objective spots to control, hence "dual". You have two areas to go after.

Thanks for the reply!

[PG_battlemechanik]

Making the scenario with no win condition apart from casterkill was perhaps the biggest mistake PP have made so far

I've won killbox on scenario in con tournaments. I'm sure others have as well. Killbox is not a "no win condition".

That being said, I think most people I've talked to are glad to see it go.

[scout's honor]

Most of my best games have been long, visceral back-and-forths that whittled down both sides to the bone before someone pulled off that clutch charge/power attack/whatever. Meanwhile, winning or losing because two or three stray models who occupied the space around an arbitrarily designated "flag" get picked off is a bland, tasteless and ultimately unsatisfying way for a game to end.

I find it quite illuminating thet your first description fits some of my contests for a zone or flag to a T. Why it's somehow more visceral to joust for that opportunity to put the final nail in a warnoun's coffin than to send in wave after determined wave to nab a tactical point - let alone have the option to go for either or both - is beyond me.

[MidnightFox0083]

I find it quite illuminating thet your first description fits some of my contests for a zone or flag to a T. Why it's somehow more visceral to joust for that opportunity to put the final nail in a warnoun's coffin than to send in wave after determined wave to nab a tactical point - let alone have the option to go for either or both - is beyond me.

Indeed. In my experience, Assassination games turn into jockeying for perfect position games, with scenario play being the knockdown drag out slugfests that Konradexius finds most satisfying.

I see this trend continuing in 2012, especially with the scenarios where your objective is closer to your opponents deployment than your own.

[PG_Feeple]

Objectives that can only be used by Warcasters/locks are also great for this, as they present a new option:

(possbily) expose the Warcaster/lock to an attack in order to gain the upper hand via scenario
versus
contest to prevent that exposure, and look for a better angle of attack.

[darkInertia]

Any model can contest an objective. The cards are currently incorrect and will be updated.

Could you also look into the Guidon Bearer's rules for placing? Specifically:

Objective: ... and cannot be moved (cannot advance, and cannot be placed, pushed, slammed, or thrown).

Raise the Guidon: Once per turn during this model's activation, it can be placed B2B with its controlling warlock/warcaster.

Since "cannot" takes first priority, the Guidon can not ever be placed by the "raise the guidon" rule.

Also, it's been mentioned before, but do objectives count as structures? If not, what is their DEF, other rules.

[SaltyBob]

Just double checking. Outflank, Outfight, Outlast has the Reiniforcements artifice but does not use the Flank deployment zones. It caught me off guard at first as it is the only one like that.

[Khador247]

I'm sorry, but if you want your games to be a mindless bloodshed in the midle of the table, then you should consider the possibility that you've picked wrong game. I know some others which will be more to your taste.



Please avoid this sort of generalization. Just becuase it isn't fun for you, it doesn't mean it isn't for others.

During SR2011, I consistently refused to play Killbox in casual games, and only played it during some tournaments where it was used. Making the scenario with no win condition apart from casterkill was perhaps the biggest mistake PP have made so far (and yes, I'm inclined to say it's a bigger one than BLT), and I'm very happy they fixed it.

If you completely read my post I'm not saying to not have scenarios in Steamroller. I'm saying to reduce the number of scenarios and make them more simple to run. I'll give you an example of what I think is a good scenario...Gaining Ground. That is the one where there are three scoring zones...one in your end (worth 1 pt) one in the middle (worth 2 pts) and one in the opponents end (worth 3 pts). It is easy to understand, rewards aggressive play while still requiring some defense and the table is easy to set up for the TO. Most importantly it is fun to play. Some of the scenarios that have been introduced the past couple years we just look at and say "Ok what the hell are we supposed to do again?".

[PG_Cloud-Gatherer]

...who doesn't have a d4 running around somewhere?

So true. What's not to love about a polyhedral randomizer that doubles as a highly effective caltrop? You know, other than all the pain of stepping on one, that is.

[Konradexius]

I find it quite illuminating thet your first description fits some of my contests for a zone or flag to a T. Why it's somehow more visceral to joust for that opportunity to put the final nail in a warnoun's coffin than to send in wave after determined wave to nab a tactical point - let alone have the option to go for either or both - is beyond me.

A perfectly valid point, but allow me to provide some illumination on my position.

In this case, I take more issue with arbitrary zone positions on the table. I hate it when you end up down a control point because the enemy is faster or has enough beef to get in the way, and then losing on tiebreakers when time is called, even though your game might be perfectly even otherwise.

I confess that another issue is the whole "tactical point" bit, as you put it. Securing a hill or linear obstacle can provide notable in-game advantages. THOSE are Tactical Points. A couple of rectangular zones arranged across from each other on the table just make you randomly win or lose, and in the meantime have no relevance whatsoever. Why does the Legion of Everblight care about this rectangular bit of dirt exactly?

Indeed. In my experience, Assassination games turn into jockeying for perfect position games, with scenario play being the knockdown drag out slugfests that Konradexius finds most satisfying.

I see this trend continuing in 2012, especially with the scenarios where your objective is closer to your opponents deployment than your own.

I've had scenario games turn into fantastic slugfests, and they end one of two ways: someone's caster dies, and the scenario was irrelevant, or someone suddenly seizes a control point or two for the win, and I am left thinking that a good game could've been great.

It's the basic premise of the game: kill the caster to win. It doesn't need to be more complicated than that. Excepting tournament play, in which time becomes a concern; that's fair. Don't define the way the game plays using scenarios, use them to instead convey a fair, relatively un-exploitable means by which the result can be dictated when things take too long. The game doesn't need guady scenarios with exploding structures and reinforcements. They just generate more unnecessary complexity, the pruning of which was the reason we went to MKII.

I want a scenario that's like Mosh Pit, without a direct victory condition. Make the zone a bit bigger, but you don't win if your opponent has nothing in it. When time is called, if you have more stuff in the zone, you win! Problem is that it hoses shooty lists a bit. Make the zone too much bigger and it's just killbox (which people apparently don't like - personally, killbox would be my scenario of choice 100% of the time).

Actually, why is it that people don't like killbox? It's blessedly simple. Keep your stuff nearish the middle of the table and fight each other. A single advance after deployment keeps you in the clear, which lets lists of all kinds do their thing. I would just change three bits: make the killbox a touch smaller, you don't autolose for having your caster out, and victory without casterkill goes to whoever killed the most VPs worth of stuff, with the added touch that models outside the box count as dead.

[scout's honor]

A perfectly valid point, but allow me to provide some illumination on my position.

In this case, I take more issue with arbitrary zone positions on the table. I hate it when you end up down a control point because the enemy is faster or has enough beef to get in the way, and then losing on tiebreakers when time is called, even though your game might be perfectly even otherwise.

No offense, but is losing on tiebreakers after both you and your opponent failed to kill the other's warnoun really better? If someone got a control point, at least they accomplished something, however nebulous and vague in practical terms. What was really accomplished in a purely caster kill situation where neither caster got killed?

Actually, why is it that people don't like killbox? It's blessedly simple. Keep your stuff nearish the middle of the table and fight each other.

Possibly the same "why would my caster want to move out in the open where he can more easily get killed" line of questions that you go down with when you ask about the Legion's interest in a patch of dirt. That patch of dirt is at least in theory supposed to mean something - what isn the meaning of losing because you stepped over an imaginary line?

[Mastershake]

Scenarios-
My general thought when flipping through the scenarios was that about half of them would just default to assassination either due to being obnoxiously difficult to achieve or having the only scoring prospect standing next to your opponent and a good chunk of those also lacked the killbox artifice. An alarming number are just "take this arbitrary piece of geometry to score". Then there's the sheer number. I like that variety is the spice of life and everything, but do we really need 18 and all the subvariations? Just makes it more likely that you'll get one in a tournament that you'll end up reading for 5 minutes (and possibly still saying "oh assassination") in the middle of an event. There definitely seems room to compress this to a smaller and tighter number than just bloating it to something ridiculous and seeing what TOs actually use.

Character Restrictions-
TBH I'm still failing to see the point of this. It's a document intended for competitive play and this feels more like some arbitrary FLGS house rule, "Play like you've got a pair...unless that's a pair of characters". Why is this the default mode when it just as easily could've been included in the variations section with MW. Like MW or the assassination-less variant, I don't want to play it all the time, but I can see the appeal of changing things up. What exactly is the determination between whether something that has as much basis in the core rules as any other variation on play being included as the default and who decided this?

Reinforcements-
Seems like there was a way to do this by holding components of the players existing army in reserve other than simply saying "free units if you roll this scenario". It's not really good or bad, so much as odd. It adds a complication when making any list for tournaments that you wouldn't need if you were just testing it out in casual games and in general I disagree with the approach of putting a gulf between casual and competitive. Character restrictions also make this goofier still since now you have multiple lists that all need an extra 7-10pts ish that can't be characters any other list has. Again it seems odd that this is the default an not an optional variation.

In general, the default settings seem like odd choices. I never felt army composition was a weakness of SR 2011, only that some of the scenarios encountered major problems against scenario feats. That problem still seems present though, you get about the same percentage of real and fake scenarios, but now with more arbitrary rules. And there's still Radials, that deployment just felt awkward every time I've played it and time hasn't helped. Overall I'd give a B rating, it doesn't seem to fix the issues 2011 had and adds a number of features to the default tournament that, regardless of love or hate, tack on extras that do nothing for quality.

[Blockbuster]

...The cards are currently incorrect and will be updated.

is there a timeline on this?
i was planning on getting a bunch of copies printed up to hand out & an event im running this weekend.

On page 8 of the pdf player 1 has 2 AD zones.

all the more reason to go first

Theme Force bonuses do not alter the width of flank deployment Zones

is this clarification a necessity? i would hope due to diagrams that it wouldn't be.

in the optional rule system

Characters Restricted ? Different versions of the same character model/unit cannot be included in more
than one of a player?s lists. (Example: A player cannot include Alexia, Mistress of the Witchfire in one list
and Alexia Ciannor & the Risen in another.

Under this rule only one version of a warcaster/lock would be allowed? Does this trump

The original and epic incarnation(s) of a character do not count as the same
version of a model.

[Vex]

The scenarios have become too complicated and too great in number. In the last two years we've added Radial and now Flanking scenarios. The maps are insane. I showed them to my wife and her response was "Why don't they just make a board game?". I'd like to see about a half dozen scenarios that are easy for both TOs and players to understand and be able to play not the giant tome of convolution that we have now. In 2013 I'd like to see the whole thing thrown out and start from scratch. The whole packet should be about 10 pages long and that includes one page for each scenario. Please PP make Steamroller fun for the players because right now it just isn't and if it isn't fun then why are we doing it right?

/strongly agree

[Gobos]

I've won killbox on scenario in con tournaments. I'm sure others have as well. Killbox is not a "no win condition".

Yes, but you did not win by fulfilling scenario condition. You won because your opponent made a grave mistake. Ergo, Killbox did not have a win condition, it only had a lose condition.

I don't know what people didn't like about Grind scenario. For me it was one of the best - not too hard to win, and making you focus on something more than killing closest enemy models. One of the tournaments when I had most fun was when we played 4 rounds of Grind I'm a bit sad to see it go, but there's enough fans to run a Grind event some time anyway.

As for SR2011 scenarios being too hard win... maybe that's a meta-thing. I remember that on Polish team nationals one guy won all five games by fulfilling scenario conditions. I usually win at least one game per tournament via scenario / 2nd tiebreakers, depending on list choice. I expect SR2012 will not be that much different, I even expect more scenario wins.

@Konradexius - I'm pretty sure I won't convince you, so I'll save myself the effort. Just for the record - Warhammer games no not use any form of objectives - they're all about killing more of your opponent's stuff than you lose in exchange. This leads to fascinating games of two defensive armies deploying in opposite corners, lobbing a few cannon shots at each other, and calling it a draw... that's one of the thing that made me quit that game. If you have lost an even game because your opponent saw an opening for scoring an objective you did not defend, well, you screwed up and you deserved to lose. Looking for such opportunities is the first thing I do when thinking about my plan for a given turn.

I understand some people may see playing for scenario win as undesirable, and 'not fun'. I respect that you have different views on the matter, but it does not change the fact that you're wrong

[MidnightFox0083]

I've had scenario games turn into fantastic slugfests, and they end one of two ways: someone's caster dies, and the scenario was irrelevant, or someone suddenly seizes a control point or two for the win, and I am left thinking that a good game could've been great.

It's the basic premise of the game: kill the caster to win. It doesn't need to be more complicated than that. Excepting tournament play, in which time becomes a concern; that's fair. Don't define the way the game plays using scenarios, use them to instead convey a fair, relatively un-exploitable means by which the result can be dictated when things take too long. The game doesn't need guady scenarios with exploding structures and reinforcements. They just generate more unnecessary complexity, the pruning of which was the reason we went to MKII.

I'd like to clarify: I'm not saying that Caster Kill is bad, but simply that I'm not a fan of Scenarios where Caster Kill is the ONLY win condition.

That said, I like Kill Box as a Complication(though not as a Scenario), as I'm one of those who sees Casters/Locks running away to stay alive as against the spirit of the game.

I'd rather not play hide and seek with my opponent because he's not willing to risk it all to kill my Caster/Lock.

[Blockbuster]

I'd like to see about a half dozen scenarios that are easy for both TOs and players to understand and be able to play not the giant tome of convolution that we have now.

there are lots of scenarios out there to be played and as a TO/EO you have pretty much control over how things are run.
dont like the SR scenarios? make it random between the ones you like.
NQ 37 were the only scenarios i would use since its release (except special events that had thier own) & adjust table size to suit army size. for even less work see Prime MK2 pgs 90-93 or Primal MK2 pg 92-95

[Konradexius]

No offense, but is losing on tiebreakers after both you and your opponent failed to kill the other's warnoun really better? If someone got a control point, at least they accomplished something, however nebulous and vague in practical terms. What was really accomplished in a purely caster kill situation where neither caster got killed?

It's a bit better, I would say. Having an army advantage with your opponent on the ropes is more indicitave of victory than a single control point scored somewhere in the game. If a game ends on time and one player can say to another "Man, you would've had me for sure if that kept going" then the second player clearly Won that game.

If I've killed the Avatar, or Rhoven & Bodyguards, or the Blessing of Vengeance, or even a unit of exemplars, that's accomplishing nothing? Killing your opponent's forces seem plenty important, particularly if they're characters. Of course it's war and people are going to die, but in games of warmachine you have casters pitting their hand-picked forces against each other, and every dead man or scrapped 'jack is a loss of sorts.

Possibly the same "why would my caster want to move out in the open where he can more easily get killed" line of questions that you go down with when you ask about the Legion's interest in a patch of dirt. That patch of dirt is at least in theory supposed to mean something - what isn the meaning of losing because you stepped over an imaginary line?

My interpretation of the killbox is that if your caster is that far back, it's akin to retreating, which is a loss by default. If nothing else, wanting to control a 24" x 24" bit of land seems more realistic than controlling a 6" X 3" strip (or whathaveyou.)

I'd like to clarify: I'm not saying that Caster Kill is bad, but simply that I'm not a fan of Scenarios where Caster Kill is the ONLY win condition.

That said, I like Kill Box as a Complication(though not as a Scenario), as I'm one of those who sees Casters/Locks running away to stay alive as against the spirit of the game.

I'd rather not play hide and seek with my opponent because he's not willing to risk it all to kill my Caster/Lock.

I agree wholeheartedly. Scenarios should be there to prevent hide & seek, but they certainly don't need to be as complicated and play-defining as what we have right now.

[Ranhothep]

I fully agree that scenarios are necessary for tournament play and Killbox should simply be a default rule for all games. Maybe the scenario controll points could provide just the first tie breaker instead of a win condition. You might be winning on controll points, but untill time is called, your opponent still has a chance for an assassination victory. Regardless, there certainly isn't a need for 18 scenarios. 6-8 would be plenty or d3 x d3. In order to distinguish all 18 of the scenarios they are getting so overly complicated it gets distracting and with the lower time limits, really stressing to keep track of the game as well as wacky scenario rules.

[Vex]

I fully agree that scenarios are necessary for tournament play and Killbox should simply be a default rule for all games. Maybe the scenario controll points could provide just the first tie breaker instead of a win condition. You might be winning on controll points, but untill time is called, your opponent still has a chance for an assassination victory. Regardless, there certainly isn't a need for 18 scenarios. 6-8 would be plenty or d3 x d3. In order to distinguish all 18 of the scenarios they are getting so overly complicated it gets distracting and with the lower time limits, really stressing to keep track of the game as well as wacky scenario rules.

I agree. Reduced time limits, too many scenarios, and more complicated scenarios all at once just seems like a really bad idea. It isn't new-player friendly at all, IMO.

[Sanctjud]

Could you also look into the Guidon Bearer's rules for placing? Specifically:

Objective: ... and cannot be moved (cannot advance, and cannot be placed, pushed, slammed, or thrown).

Raise the Guidon: Once per turn during this model's activation, it can be placed B2B with its controlling warlock/warcaster.

Since "cannot" takes first priority, the Guidon can not ever be placed by the "raise the guidon" rule.

Also, it's been mentioned before, but do objectives count as structures? If not, what is their DEF, other rules.

I second this question.

[Cambrian]

My main issue is the time limit reduction. I feel this will affect armies differently and wont do anything to improve (perhaps even upset) the balance among factions in the game currently. It seems unnecessary and as someone mentioned above very unfriendly to newer players.

I'll wait to play the majority of the scenario's before judging having 18 of them; I like the diversity but 18 seems like it could be excessive.

[Jestor]

Can someone please explain to me how "Stand near this thing and touch this thing" is complicated? I don't get it. I don't want to make any ill remarks towards another Warmachine player but, if you can figure out how power attacks work and how the focus/fury system works, you should be able to descern how the scenario's work within 60 seconds.

[The Happy Anarchist]

As someone who has played quite a few 2012 games, the scenarios are interesting and dynamic. I did see scenario victories being won, and even more games one because scenario victories were imminent and someone had to play aggressively to stop it.

As far as time issues, every tournament we ran before we got chess clocks all of last year was under Accelerated, the current "standard". If you are doing a new player friendly tournament, that is when "Casual" should come into play. I don't really feel the standard tournament rules should cater towards newer players, they should be focused on the more experienced players. The variants are great for getting new players in to the game, particularly Casual time limits, and I recommend using them if doing a tournament intended to help new players get into tournament play.

As a note on the standard, I ran my 50+ model eMadrak list, with multiple attacks on feat turn, with Accelerated Time Limits every time I ran it. I didn't have much trouble at all, and I am not a super stupid fast player.

Killbox is hateful because it doesn't do anything to provide variety. It did the one thing, and we saw it so often it was boring. The other ones bring far more variety. In particular, the interactive objective ones give interesting changes with your caster, including having them risk more and certain casters that normally can have issues in scenario play getting nice bonuses.

[BryanC]

As far as time issues, every tournament we ran before we got chess clocks all of last year was under Accelerated, the current "standard". If you are doing a new player friendly tournament, that is when "Casual" should come into play. I don't really feel the standard tournament rules should cater towards newer players, they should be focused on the more experienced players. The variants are great for getting new players in to the game, particularly Casual time limits, and I recommend using them if doing a tournament intended to help new players get into tournament play.

There are many people i know who felt that the standard 2011 timed limits were constraining and they were not new players. Also there is a BIG difference between using a chess clock and timed turns. A chess clock allows you to use your time in the turns you need it, where timed turns you have the same time constrain every turn (with the exception of the extension). Also as I have indicated prior, the % of time decreased in the new standard is vastly different from 35 points to 50 points.

Its seems to me that in regards to the time, there are two schools of thought: Those who feel the Standard should be tailored to the Advanced player, and those who feel the Standard should be tailored to the Average player.

[solkan]

It's a bit better, I would say. Having an army advantage with your opponent on the ropes is more indicitave of victory than a single control point scored somewhere in the game. If a game ends on time and one player can say to another "Man, you would've had me for sure if that kept going" then the second player clearly Won that game.

Have you seen an action/adventure movie where the hero is being chased by overwhelming odds and all he's trying to do is stay alive long enough to push some button or to get out of the area with the MacGuffin? That's a scenario victory, and it's just as exciting and just as valid as beating the other guy's head honcho over the head with a pointy stick.

When Asphixious tried to get himself promoted at the Orgoth ruins, that was essentially a "stand in the marked geometry until X happens so you win" scenario.

[GaspysInhaler]

There are many people i know who felt that the standard 2011 timed limits were constraining and they were not new players. Also there is a BIG difference between using a chess clock and timed turns. A chess clock allows you to use your time in the turns you need it, where timed turns you have the same time constrain every turn (with the exception of the extension). Also as I have indicated prior, the % of time decreased in the new standard is vastly different from 35 points to 50 points.

Its seems to me that in regards to the time, there are two schools of thought: Those who feel the Standard should be tailored to the Advanced player, and those who feel the Standard should be tailored to the Average player.

^ This

Since the 2012 rules are official now, I doubt any complaints will be effective. However, I really abhor the new time limits. I've been playing in tournaments since 2009, with varying points and time limits (hardcore, ironman, etc...), and I've felt extremely rushed during my SR 2012 games. At the 35 pt level, it is even more noticeable. At the end of my most recent outing, I was tired and aggravated after each game.

My turns were:

Activate, move models as quickly as possibly *look at clock*
Activate, move models, attack, roll damage, etcs*look at clock*
Activate caster, cast spells, Feat or not *look at clock nervously*

*look at what I have left to activate* Decide if I want to use my extension or not. *look at clock again*

end turn -- and then watch my opponent go through the same hell I just went through.

And like I said, I've played in many, many tournaments (none of the "con's" as many other speak of, which use the accelerated turns), but I found the entire experience frustrating. And I didn't find anyone else at the tournament to enjoy the games as much either -- many of them who have been playing longer than me.

What's disconcerting is that the recent "fad" on the forums has been the issue of the superiority of fury over focus as a mechanic. Fury tends to be superior and IMO, rewards smarter players in the long run. Unfortunately, the new time constraints tend favor a smaller model count with more heavies -- which indirectly helps Hordes due to their reliance on Warbeasts.

[Mastershake]

Have you seen an action/adventure movie where the hero is being chased by overwhelming odds and all he's trying to do is stay alive long enough to push some button or to get out of the area with the MacGuffin? That's a scenario victory, and it's just as exciting and just as valid as beating the other guy's head honcho over the head with a pointy stick.

When Asphixious tried to get himself promoted at the Orgoth ruins, that was essentially a "stand in the marked geometry until X happens so you win" scenario.

I don't feel scenarios is playing to the game's strengths. Carefully crafted assassinations where major gambles are made is where the system excels. It would be like a Malifaux tournament packet where you won simply by killing things without consideration of Strategies and Schemes. Also, scenario victories aren't an "exciting race", they're "I stand here, see if you can move me".

[PG_lord tyrant watt]

Also, scenario victories aren't an "exciting race", they're "I stand here, see if you can move me".

Enter TIBERION!!

[Mastershake]

Enter TIBERION!!

or eBaldur who's win condition is usually boredom

[Khaunshar]

I don't feel scenarios is playing to the game's strengths. Carefully crafted assassinations where major gambles are made is where the system excels. It would be like a Malifaux tournament packet where you won simply by killing things without consideration of Strategies and Schemes. Also, scenario victories aren't an "exciting race", they're "I stand here, see if you can move me".

The problem with which is that in warmachine, there are plenty of casters that just arent good at, nor built for, assassination. The main reason we see a lot of pre-set packages of always the same units, solos and heavies is BECAUSE until a few days ago, it was almost ALWAYS (and, barring the odd radial scenario, the sole way to play the game apparently) an assassination run across a gap of 30 inches, with parallel deployment and thats about it.

The more flanking, radial or otherwise varied scenarios can appear, the less you can custom-tailor armies to the exact same basic setup. I mean, it got to the point where you use the same army, do almost the exact same first turn, ALL THE TIME when playing or training for tournaments, simply because it always being the same.

Of course, you can overdo the whole "change things up" idea, to the point where the core game gets diluted. I dont think that has been happening yet in the least.

And in the end, there is a greater issue with Steamroller tournaments, and the game in general, which is the dominance of certain picks, casters and combos over almost everything else on a competitive level. Screwing with the usual pre-set standard conditions is one way to give this issue a nudge and see what happens. Although I d be much in favor of some hard-hitting errata instead of trying to fix scenario feats by changing up distances and winning conditions - but that is a different topic altogether.

[The Happy Anarchist]

There are many people i know who felt that the standard 2011 timed limits were constraining and they were not new players. Also there is a BIG difference between using a chess clock and timed turns. A chess clock allows you to use your time in the turns you need it, where timed turns you have the same time constrain every turn (with the exception of the extension). Also as I have indicated prior, the % of time decreased in the new standard is vastly different from 35 points to 50 points.

Its seems to me that in regards to the time, there are two schools of thought: Those who feel the Standard should be tailored to the Advanced player, and those who feel the Standard should be tailored to the Average player.

As I said, I played those lists before we started using chess clocks. They worked fine.

And I mostly agree with you. Except that I feel the average player can perform just fine under the time limits, advanced players go under the faster time limits - such as Hardcore events, and that casual or beginning players do just fine under the casual time limits.

We had done accelerated time limits the whole time before we got chess clocks and I didn't hear any of the non-advanced or newer players have too much of an issue. Maybe their first tournament with timed turns, but other than that they seemed to get stuff done quickly enough, even with accelerated turns. I can assure you, not every player in Utah is a hard core, efficient steam rollerin machine. You can do fine - and everyone seems to enjoy themselves quite a bit.

Same goes for the SR2012 scenarios - the events we have done under the beta were successful, and everyone seemed to be smiling and having fun.

[Blaque]

I fully admit I prefer having scenarios. I have had too many incidents where I tried to go for caster kills that were against the sort of warnouns that if I didn't succeed, I'm boned. And my chances of success were so slim as to be pretty much hoping for a dice god that wasn't there to hear me or wished to see me suffer. When you litereally throw every single solitary available model at Terminous and fail to kill him, you kind of lose a taste for pure assassination-based games.

I also like the "puzzle" aspect of scenario. It might just be my personal tastes for game, but I find alternateve versions of victory neat and entertaining. (I like learning odd versions of chess for that very reason, and love challenge modes in video games.) And since I play a faction that has a bad habit of flailing uselessly against some warnouns, but does well at scenario and control, I like being able to emphasize those strengths.

On volume of scenarios, I think from my RPG background, I would rather things were higher and toned down, than lower and have to be brought-up. By having the scnearios divied up into the six groups, and most events boing about four rounds until you get to big things, a TO can excise ones he simply doesn't like and not be forced into it. Hate Radials? Good, you don't have to use them. Hate Flank too? Good thing you don't need those. Oh look, now the four groups left are normal deployment. That's the goal of so many. In SR2011, since there were four groups, events greater than 16 players had to use unusual deployments, period. If that's not your thing as a TO or playgroup, that's okay now. You'll play some of the 18 more than others, that's a fact. Just as in SR 2011 I almost never saw Grind or Demolition, and pretty much saw Killbox in every single solitary ****ing tournament I ever played in, I think that we'll see some scenarios favored over others for ease of use and such.

I will admit I have a couple reservations in two ain areas. The first is that I sitll think the extra rules on objectives are a tad complicated and still am not sure on those. That said, the new cards do a huge service in helping make them actually freaking work, so I am for that.

Second, while I think that 10min. isn't too bad (as THA, before we got chess clocks, that is how most of us ran in the Utah area anyhow), having the 12min. default with a 15min. casual time was probably better for most venues. I very much see the concern here.

And yeah, stuff.

[Slipfox]

Just to chime in on the time limit stuff - the second or third game I ever played was in a 50 point Steamroller event. 10 minute turns, one extension. It was exhilarating, and after the first round I was making it in under my time limits, by the third round I felt like I was a veteran. It is, in fact, why I got hooked on the game. I think I am an average gamer, and I definitely benefited long term from having to play that quickly. Shows you what you can do if its your first time, and I think the game is straight forward enough that it is only beneficial.


About SR2012. Scenario #4 Guidons - How do you get a control point? Does the ObJ have to be moved into your zone with your caster? This is probably a silly question, but the Guidon can move to be in B2B right? Does that mean you have to trudge it over to your zone? Do you get a point if you are in your zone and nobody is contesting your OBJ?

[DiscoPhive]

In my experience, playing Caster Kill exclusively soon devolved into into facing very little diversity in army composition which revealed significant flaws in certain choices while others became obviously superior. Within a small group it soon became predictable to anticipate Beast 09, Spriggan, Big B against Khador or Typhon, Shredder, Carnivian, Striders vs Legion, as examples, with the variation becoming the huge forest on the left, right or center. As a group owning all the factions and almost all the models, I soon felt like it was not only repetitive but a waste of money and excitement.

Steam Roller is the perfect solution in my mind and the sheer variety in SR2012 is nothing short of awesome. From a competitive perspective, the SR2012 volume of 18 scenarios cannot help but increase the challenges to a tactician as the variables are so much increased. I wouldn't be surprised if the divide between scenario vs Caster Kill win condition preference is based strongly upon which faction a particular player prefers and whether that faction excels at one or the other as most reasonable folks enjoy mightily a big W and would, even subconsciously, prefer to fight to their strengths. Within the challenge of creating the most level field for the competitive environment, it seems reasonable to deliberately create the most diverse conditions for attaining victory whereby the most capable and adaptive general wins the event. In this regard, I consider SR2012 to be exceptional.

Another by-product of Caster Kill win condition evolved a meticulous and VERY SLOW positioning game, wherein it may be argued that a capable general shall excel, which is quite reasonable, however sacrificing that crucial element of excitement as turns bogged down. SR2012 requires a heightened ability and knowledge to effect victory within a short span which invariably increases adrenalin (and fatigue.) This aspect is both good and bad as it demands more rather than less while simultaneously separating the experienced or dedicated players from the casual or newer ones. Coming from the background of perpetual slow games, I have to give this one a huge thumbs up as I personally strive to increase my own gaming skills and desiring to inflict a sense of urgency upon my opponent.

Considering the realism or fluff of contesting geometrical shapes on a tabletop, I see no correlation with the inherent strengths or weaknesses of the core mechanics of the game and thus find it completely reasonable to expect such SR2012 requirements inside a win condition. As I believe this intent is to diversify and balance list composition, it is strange to me that such efforts should be considered worthless and again are much more an addition more so than a subtraction to the overall experience.

As most who play this game are engaged in school curriculum or already have a job, I think the concept of the SR2012 format as too complicated to be a fairly weak position as the aforementioned efforts require more skill and energy than what I divine within those few pages. Perhaps not, but then SR2012 can be nothing if not a way to advance yourself as an individual

Character Restriction are another tool to develop diversity within lists, personal tactics and is likely profitable to our beloved company, which is a win for all but those who are legitimately constrained by their financial situation, therefore being either a huge boon or a substantial fault of SR2012. Considering the game and competitive play in general, it seems only prohibitive to those who primarily concern themselves with the win (who doesn't in competitive play?) but stretching beyond that narrative I think individuals are better served and therefore support it philosophically. I've heard the argument that some will simply play SR2012 almost exclusively with their "best" list but when faced with the sheer volume of diversity that SR2012 provides it becomes a much less viable solution.

The several games I have played under SR2012 were nothing short of fantastic, fast paced, adrenalin driven matches that still most often end via assassination. I like it. A lot.