Post by Azahul on Nov 26, 2017 8:52:04 GMT
I'd be interested to hear what other peoples' experiences of this scenario have been. It appears to be hideously unfair for the attacker to me. The attacker has to split their forces between four table edges (or, more likely, deploy their forces in two clumps in opposite corners of the board to minimise the impact of splitting their troops), which all but ensures that their battle plans will be less effective. They have a harder win condition than the defender, who in a straight points battle surely is just as likely to wipe out the attackers as be wiped out, while also having the option to just keep a model alive until the end of the game. And the defender gets to deploy in one clump for easy battle plan usage and gets a free wall to boot.
I've played the scenario once as the defender in a regular 20 point game, and by the second to last turn it was physically impossible for my opponent to win because he didn't have enough attacks to kill my force (which was only 8 models) in two rounds.
On this weekend past I played the game as a two vs one scenario. Two attackers with 20 point forces against my defending 20 point force. That was far more challenging, and I only barely scraped out a win, but the fact that there was actually a serious game there with two players ganging up on a lone defender makes it feel like the basic scenario is quite skewed.
As an aside, I would seriously recommend playing Under Siege if you're ever in a situation where you have a three person game. It was an utter blast.
And all that said, it has only been two games. How have you guys been finding it?
I've played the scenario once as the defender in a regular 20 point game, and by the second to last turn it was physically impossible for my opponent to win because he didn't have enough attacks to kill my force (which was only 8 models) in two rounds.
On this weekend past I played the game as a two vs one scenario. Two attackers with 20 point forces against my defending 20 point force. That was far more challenging, and I only barely scraped out a win, but the fact that there was actually a serious game there with two players ganging up on a lone defender makes it feel like the basic scenario is quite skewed.
As an aside, I would seriously recommend playing Under Siege if you're ever in a situation where you have a three person game. It was an utter blast.
And all that said, it has only been two games. How have you guys been finding it?