They Won on Scenario in SR 2017

Man, I turn up to a thread full of arguments and I've been slagged off without even being here.

Classy.

The variables out of my control i spoke off were due to the mechanics of the game and not due to the mechanics of the scenario

Except they've nerfed haley2, and every other control caster. So why was there a need to make scenarios totally dead?

How is it more intuitive?

If anything its less intuitive, since its more difficult to explain. And it's just less of a thinking game. SR17 has devolved to where all games are basically both players ramming their armies at each other, quite literally. There is no tactical depth here, no room for playstyles other than "apply axe to face!", and no pulling a hail-mary victory from the jaw's of defeat other than assassination(which is not something all factions can do).

Haley2 could have used more nerfs if they were going to keep the superior SR16 format and keep improving on it. Instead they've decided to just burn the whole thing down and start over with something even worse, which is a big mistake.

There was plenty of interaction between players on the old scenario play. You had to prevent your opponent from scoring anything, otherwise he would get ahead. Now, preventing your opponent from scoring is not a big deal as long as you are also scoring at least something. There is just no urgency to scoring of points. You have 7 turns to pull off an assassination or grind your opponent down. And if you can't do either of those, which many factions cannot, you're just screwed.

There will be no more awesome games where you go into the tank trying to figure out how you can score the last 2 points you need to win before Butcher3 comes and eats your face. And if you fail to kill those last 3 enemy models contesting the zone, you're gonna lose. You can only have this experience now if you go for assassinations, which again not everybody can do.

This is a general theme with SR17. It's hideously biased vs certain factions. They want everybody to homogenize into only 1-2 playstyles, when many people simply cannot do those playstyles. While other playstyles are basically an autolose playstyle. No more hit and run, no more pull off a janky scenario victory, no more control, etc... Basically all the variety is gone.

That's really a poor analogy. Having to think critically about how to score points added a great deal to the game, not like some stupid irrelevance about singing.

Yes, not everything adds good depth. But the more live scenario play in SR16 was 100% good depth. It gave an actual chance to playstyles who couldn't go toe to toe with heavy armored brawlers. SR17 however basically forced everything to fight toe to toe in the middle, and that puts the advantage squarely in the factions and playstyles built around putting as many beefy jacks/beasts into the middle. Unless you can go into the ring with a Juggernaut you're just going to lose, and many factions simply lose.

Well this is just blatantly false.

All but one of the scenarios edges are in the killbox which is considered the edge of the table. In fact, 4 of the scenarios have the edges of zones 6" from the table edge.

So either you're wrong about the whole game taking place in the middle of the table or reality is a lie. Or more likely you just decided you didn't like SR2017 and haven't actually played/looked/thought about it much.

Just because a portion of some elements is close to the edge doesn't mean you don't have centralized gameplay. Actual gameplay is resulting in all the action condensing in the middle of the table. There is no real depth of tactics, or any need to play intelligently.