|
|
Post by Big Fat Troll on Feb 15, 2018 3:34:19 GMT
I thought these polls would be useful soon.
|
|
Arcaux
Junior Strategist
Posts: 724 
|
Post by Arcaux on Feb 15, 2018 10:11:50 GMT
Spread the Net.
It makes a style of play (beast/jack heavy) almost unplayable and often leads to absolute non games where someone misjudges the scenario and loses on turn 3.
That isn't to say that there aren't some excellent games on this scenario, but the amount of Gotcha wins suggests poor scenario design.
On a side note I see votes for Breakdown. It really good to have a relatively dead scenario in the pack to encourage different win conditions.
|
|
|
|
Post by 36cygnar24guy36 on Feb 15, 2018 10:15:09 GMT
On a side note I see votes for Breakdown. It really good to have a relatively dead scenario in the pack to encourage scenarios that promote different win conditions. Had not thought of it that way, I can see the merit in it though |
|
|
|
Post by Gamingdevil on Feb 15, 2018 10:20:54 GMT
I don't have issues with any of them to be honest. If I would have to choose, it would be Breakdown because it's the least live or Spread the Net because it's slightly too live.
|
|
bward
Junior Strategist
Posts: 184
|
Post by bward on Feb 15, 2018 14:18:55 GMT
To add to the discussion- in January Hungerford created a poll in the general warmachine group on FB, asking your FAVORITE scenario. Here were the results
Spread the net - 70 votes
The pit 2 - 36 votes
Recon 2 - 25 votes
Standoff - 10 votes
Breakdown - 8 votes
Outlast - 8 votes
|
|
Arcaux
Junior Strategist
Posts: 724
|
Post by Arcaux on Feb 15, 2018 14:27:47 GMT
To add to the discussion- in January Hungerford created a poll in the general warmachine group on FB, asking your FAVORITE scenario. Here were the results Spread the net - 70 votes The pit 2 - 36 votes Recon 2 - 25 votes Standoff - 10 votes Breakdown - 8 votes Outlast - 8 votes It's interesting that you get very different results depending on what question you. I think Spread the Net would win votes for most and least favourite scenario.
The fact is that the unbalanced nature of Spread the Net means it gives some factions a big advantage meaning players from those factions like it and players from other factions hate it.
|
|
bward
Junior Strategist
Posts: 184
|
Post by bward on Feb 15, 2018 14:43:00 GMT
To add to the discussion- in January Hungerford created a poll in the general warmachine group on FB, asking your FAVORITE scenario. Here were the results Spread the net - 70 votes The pit 2 - 36 votes Recon 2 - 25 votes Standoff - 10 votes Breakdown - 8 votes Outlast - 8 votes It's interesting that you get very different results depending on what question you. I think Spread the Net would win votes for most and least favourite scenario.
The fact is that the unbalanced nature of Spread the Net means it gives some factions a big advantage meaning players from those factions like it and players from other factions hate it.
Not so much faction I think, more army composition. I’ve seen all factions put something forward that would do well/do bad in it. I love how much it makes me think of deployment, first/second turn positioning, list comp, etc... it makes the game much more than just axe to face. That said, it’s slightly too live still. I’ve seen some 18-16 games that are just painful to keep track of. I think the ideal scenario is about 80-90% liveliness of Spread the Net. Just my opinion |
|
Choco
Junior Strategist
Gorten, best feet in the game.
Posts: 571
|
Post by Choco on Feb 15, 2018 17:57:53 GMT
I voted for Breakdown (almost voted for Outlast) as I find it boring. But I guess that adds to the scenario in how you need to win in it.
|
|
Grimolf
Junior Strategist
Posts: 246
|
Post by Grimolf on Feb 16, 2018 0:47:16 GMT
I’m with those who don’t like Breakdown. I understand the desire to have a scenario that is less live in the packet, but I enjoy the scenarios that make me think about list construction beforehand, and then require that I consider deployment, etc. during the game. They are far more interesting. If Spread the Net is a challenge, it’s because I haven’t prepped for it properly and/or didn’t deploy/plan properly.
|
|
Cyel
Junior Strategist
Posts: 685
|
Post by Cyel on Feb 16, 2018 12:49:38 GMT
I like the idea behind Spread the Net (wide maneuvers, flanking etc) but I have seen to many games on this scenario with little actual combat and more running to die contesting/blocking ways with bodies from both sides until one side pulls a janky trick (still not involving much combat) or runs out of bodies to throw away.
I think it's the ability of the army moving first (and fast) to take so much ground that the army moving second has trouble contesting the rectangle and flag on the opposing side of the table. Especially if it's not superfast/maneuverable itself. As a result the advantage of moving second - you are supposed to score first - is lost because the enemy scores on your second turn as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by Big Fat Troll on Feb 16, 2018 13:55:33 GMT
I like the idea behind Spread the Net (wide maneuvers, flanking etc) but I have seen to many games on this scenario with little actual combat and more running to die contesting/blocking ways with bodies from both sides until one side pulls a janky trick (still not involving much combat) or runs out of bodies to throw away. I think it's the ability of the army moving first (and fast) to take so much ground that the army moving second has trouble contesting the rectangle and flag on the opposing side of the table. Especially if it's not superfast/maneuverable itself. As a result the advantage of moving second - you are supposed to score first - is lost because the enemy scores on your second turn as well. You summed it up better than I did, so thanks. |
|
