What is Maelstrom of Battle?
The one thing all the scenarios in Pool 1 have in common is their deployment style, or lack of really! The Maelstrom rules immediately present a rather divisive topic amongst players of the game we all love so much. In short, the rules dictate that you don't start with your force neatly deployed on the field of battle in their meticulous shield walls but they instead appear on a random table edge based on a D6 during your turns. Risk is attached to this rule as a poor roll can even lead to one of your warbands not yet arriving (roll of a 1) or arriving in a position dictated by your opponent (rolls of 2 or 3). Now you can spend valuable Might points to alter this roll (in fact, one of the few occasions you can use Might to lower a roll), but that's a rather costly sacrifice. Angmar players in particular feel the pain in this situation given their spooky boys are not the mightiest of heroes, most having 0 Might points!
One other issue with Maelstrom deployment is when considering whether to dust of that cheeky siege engine for your well-crafted army list or not. Given that they have to deploy before the game starts and within 6" of a board edge, I'm sure there are many readers who can recall that sinking feeling when your opponent's army appears within stabbing range of your helpless war machine as your crew men just spend the first turn staring into the abyss of their inevitable doom.
Now, before looking at the 3 scenarios in the pool, it has to be said that the introduction of a pool system does mean that you are now only going to face 1 Maelstrom scenario per tournament (R.I.P Guritz!). This means it has become less of an issue when list building and, for those who mostly play 1 day events like us in the EAHC, there is a strong chance it may not turn up at all.
Heirlooms of Ages Past
Buried somewhere upon the field of battle is a long-forgotten heirloom of ages past. Having narrowed down its location , the two armies now fight for possession of this relic. However, the powers the powers that linger upon this mysterious object are easily capable of corrupting those who hold it for too long. - Matched Play Guide (pg.20)
Starting straight away with a big one. For me the most controversial scenario in all of the SBG and one I find is accompanied by a chorus of groans and tangible disappointment. For me, this is my least liked scenario. Now I know that is simply my point of view and I welcome anyone who can changed my mind but let me explain why I feel this scenario is flawed, and how to fix it.
Heirlooms is set up with 6 objectives, spread around the battlefield, that could all be the relic in question. So far so good. In their movement phase, players can use an infantry model to uncover the relic. Again, all good. However, next is the crucial issue. When attempting to find the relic, you roll a D6. Anything other than a 6 means that objective is not the relic and the marker is removed. So you have 1/6 of a chance to uncover the relic. Not very likely. Here's what happens in every Heirlooms game I play. Each player secures one objective but neither touch the objectives in questions. Basically, both armies castle up on one objective each. They then spend the rest of the game trying to uncover the rest of the objectives on the off-chance they find the relic. The most likely outcome is that the relic isn't found and both armies just sit back, twiddling their thumbs on the objective they control and refuse the risk the D6 roll as the final objective marker left instantly becomes the relic, most likely giving your opponent 6 VPs (if they control the relic) in the process. The scenario promotes negative gameplay.
So what is the solution? Remove the D6 roll for finding the relic. Make sure that 5 markers have the same image when flipped over and that 1 marker has a unique image, making it the relic. Now this is already available in the General Accessories Pack with the One Ring markers and Gollum on the other side (although paper with 5 crosses and 1 tick would suffice). This way you are promoting positive play.
For the final VP opportunities (those not related to the relic), we have the the usual broken and leader kill. Worth a possible 4 VPs, both a core to SBG scenarios. However, my frustration with Heirlooms continues with the final way of gaining VPs, having a banner left on the battlefield. For some armies, this is a massive issue. Goblin Town or Moria or Radagast's Alliance spring immediately to mind as they have no access to banners (I'm sure there are others). Fancy playing a scenario where you are 2VPs down before you starts? No, me neither.
Scenario rating: 1/5.
Hold Ground
In the swirl of battle it becomes apparent that a certain, usually insignificant, area of the battlefield has become vital to the victory of both sides. Both forces surge towards this new tactical advantage, desperate to control it. - Matched Play Guide (pg.13)
From the worst scenario to one of the very best. Hold Ground is a great example of a positive, enjoyable scenario for everyone involved. You have the excitement of Maelstrom deployment and the choice of trying to cut off your opponents forces or doing your best impression of The Flash and hightailing it to the centre. The interest and building tension as both your and your opponent are counting models within 6" of the centre every turn and even the random game end when one force is broken continues to ramp of the pressure of the scenario. The games won or lost because the D6 roll to end the game has come at the exact moment needed are always ones you remember, regardless of the way the result falls.
With up to 7VPs for controlling the centre, the tactical priority is clear but you don't feel bottlenecked in how you achieve that. Furthermore, as both armies clash in the middle, tearing each other asunder, the VPs available for leader kills and breaking become an intrinsic and important part of the scenario. Whenever Hold Ground is rolled, whether I think my force is strong for the scenario or will struggle, I'm never disappointed and know I'm in for a fun game.
Scenario rating: 5/5
Command the Battlefield
Two enemy forces are embroiled in a deadlock on the battlefield.Only by gaining control of the grounds they are fighting upon can either side hoe to claim victory. - Matched Play Guide (pg.24)
Command the Battlefield is, tactically, the opposite of Hold Ground. In this scenario it is everything apart from the centre of the battlefield that you are looking to control. With the centre of the battlefield designated as 'Worthless Ground' (anything within 12" of the centre point), it is each table quarter that will give you those sweet VPs. An interesting concept.
Overall, Command the Battlefield is a scenario which makes most armies viable. Fancy a load of horses? Cool. Bringing a daunting gunline? All good. Want to get in your opponent's face and chop them limb from limb with a combat army? Sounds great. Combine this flexibility with the potential chaos of Maelstrom deployment and you have what is shaping up to be a great addition to the scenario list. So surely another 5/5? Erm, well no.
The way the VPs are spread, and the fact it straight up ends at 25%, means there are too many occasions where this scenario is close impossible to win. I said most armies are viable for this one, most not being all. I feel this scenario penalises elite armies far too much. With the VPs based on numbers, if you bring a nice, elite army or even an all-hero A-Team list, most conventional armies with higher numbers will just spread out and win through board control. It's not an auto-loss at all, but is rather too skewed to high numbers and mobility for me to put this at the top of the scenario list. Of course, I am aware that most scenarios favour a certain army build but I feel this scenario is particularly biased.
Scenario Rating: 3/5
So there we have it, Pool 1 finished. A real mixed bag of scenarios. The Maelstrom pool remind me of a bag of Revels. You might pull out a joyous Malteser, a solid toffee or rue your luck and have to suffer through a coffee creme.
Think I've got this horribly wrong? Comment below and tell me why.
Kieran
No comments:
Post a Comment