The Lay of the Land: Object Scenarios

On to the next scenario pool, we look at the Object Scenarios found in Pool 3 of the Match Play Guide. As the name suggests, all the scenarios include the tactical addition of VPs based on objects on the battlefield. With two of the three scenarios being new additions to the list of SBG options, we see how they compare to their scenario brethren.

Seize the Prize

Within Middle Earth, an ancient and mysterious artifact has awoken. Its power has drawn two opposing armies to claim it, hoping to use its secrets for their own ends. Both forces will stop at nothing to possess it. - Matched Paly Guide (pg.17).

Seize the Prize, the OG scenario of the three in the pool, is proof that new isn't always better. The scenario holds its own when compared to its newer cousins and proves to be an interesting, tactical mission. With the vast majority of VPs up for grabs relating to an object, placed in the centre of the battlefield, both armies are forced to focus their attention on the middle of the board. You can't afford to be a passive player in Seize the Prize and it is common to see both armies call Heroic Marches in the first turn to inch closer to the object. However, simply having the object isn't enough as that may only give you a paltry 3VPs. You are pushed into your opponent's army in order to gain more VPs, 5 for holding the object within your opponent's board half or a game-winning 7 if you escape from your opponent's board edge. This tactical decision (do you stick with 3 and hold out, push for 5 or go gung-ho for 7?) creates an interesting dilemma, especially considering VPs are on offer for breaking and killing the enemy leader. 

So how do you turn the scenario in your favour? Mobility. The object is 12" from you at the start of the game. Cavalry with a Heroic March make that up on the first turn and most standard infantry will be their turn 2 (poor dwarves, goblins and especially hobbits). If you don't have built-in mobility in your list, bring a captain or another hero with March. They are invaluable for so many scenarios. Now there are a handful of models who are game changers for Seize the Prize: flying infantry. If you have eagles, crebain or bat swarms, you are playing the scenario with cheat mode activated. If you bring Gulavhar, things get even better! (It's quite possible to win by turn 3 with a lucky roll when picking up the object and a couple of well-place Heroic Combats!) The only thing getting on your way is luck. With the object needing a 4+ to be plucked out of the ground, if you have offended the dice gods, no amount of mobility will save you. 

A fun, tactical scenario which encourages positive, aggressive tactics. Sounds good to me.

Scenario rating: 5/5

Destroy the Supplies

By destroying the supplies and rations of their enemy, once force can gain an immediate upper hand in the battles between the two armies. - Matched Play Guide (pg.27).

A recent addition to SBG, Destroy the Supplies is a classic attack and defend scenario. With VPs spread across a range of objectives (for each destroyed enemy supply marker, banners, breaking and leader kills), it provides a real tactical challenge for the generals upon Middle-Earth's battlefields. Each side has 3 objective markers, placed evenly at the edge of their 12" deployment zone, which represent their armies stash of goodies. The scenario creates the conundrum of having to protect your own supplies whilst simultaneously looking to burn and pillage your opponent's. The best thing about Destroy the Supplies is that it allows a huge range of tactical approaches to be employed in search of victory. If you have an army suited to a defensive war of attrition, you can castle around your objectives and outlast your opponent. You could be aggressive and pin your opponent back whilst pressuring their objectives. Do you abandon 1 objective to keep the two others safe? The choice really is yours! Numbers are going to be helpful, allowing you to more easily attack and defend, as will having some mobility in your army. However, that can be said of most of the scenarios and Destroy the Supplies doesn't feel like an instant loss if you are outnumbered or outmanoeuvred, unlike some scenarios, but rather an challenging uphill struggle. There is a growing trend in that I rate scenarios which promote players getting stuck-in and being proactive and Destroy the Supplies continues in that vein. 

Scenario rating: 4/5 

Retrieval

Both forces have claimed something of value from their enemy, and both will fight to reclaim what is rightfully theirs. - Matched Play Guide (pg.25)

Retrieval is, to all intents and purposes, 'capture the flag: Middle Earth edition'. Both players are attempting to take hold of the opponent's objective whilst making sure they keep the enemy's filthy mittens off of their own. The premise is simple, promotes positive gameplay and forces each player into clear tactical decision. However, for me, the execution is poor. The scenario suffers from a strange diagonal deployment zone, with essentially a 6" deadzone separating the two armies. The 'flags' are placed 15" from each players corner and VPs are scored largely by retrieving the objective (up to 7 in total) but can also be gained by the usual breaking and leader kill opportunities. The issue is, it takes so long to traverse the map diagonally for a large number of armies that it is often easier and quicker to just focus on destroying the opponent's army. If you put enough pressure on you can break your opponent, and start the subsequent game ending rolls, before the objectives ever come in to play. This is further compounded by the fact that, in order to get significant points from holding the objective, you really want to return the object to your deployment zone or look to escape from one of your own board edges. For some armies this is but a pipe dream. I can't see many a situation where a Moria army or a dwarf army ever achieves that before the game comes to an end. Now Rohan and other cavalry heavy armies love this scenario, particularly if they have a couple of Heroic Marches available, as do flying infantry (where bat swarms become Moria's only hope of retrieving the object). I love the concept but can't help but feel that the traditional horizontal deployment would have worked better. If you overlook the distances involved, it is another scenario which promotes a good old scrap but one which can often devolve into a mini 'To the Death' for lots of armies.

Scenario rating: 3/5

The Object missions offer fun, aggressive games but clearly are skewed towards more mobile armies. When you have set of missions focussed around reaching objective markers, this is somewhat unavoidable. However it is clear that the missions are well-balanced enough to make sure that any army composition is at least viable, helping make Pool 3 a welcome sight at tournaments across the world.

The Lay of the Land: Hold Objective Scenarios

We continue our discussion and analysis of the 18 scenarios in MESBG. Be sure to read the first post in the series, covering Maelstrom of Battle scenarios, if you haven't done so already. This time round, we move on to pool 2; the 'Hold Objective' scenarios.

Domination

This battlefield will provide a distinct tactical advantage for whoever holds it for many years to come. Victory can be achieved by forcing the enemy back and securing the key points on the battlefield. Failure will not be permitted! - Matched Play Guide (pg. 11).

First up, we have a look at Domination. Before armies are deployed, 1 objective is placed centrally and 4 others are placed by the players in alternating order. There are restrictions in place to make sure the objectives are spread fairly evenly across the tabletop. The deployment areas for Domination are great for armies that want to tear through their opponents in brutal close combat, with both zones ending at 24" or half of the battlefield. This allows you to place immediate pressure on your opponent and helps to mitigate losses from bow fire as they will struggle to fire too many times when you're already bearing down upon them. If you are not deploying on the centre line then, in all but a tiny handful of circumstances, you're making a mistake. This is because of the way VPs are scored in Domination. With each objective worth 2VPs if only friendly models are within 3" or 1VP if more friendly than enemy models are within 3", objective control is vital. If you don't contest the centre of the board early, you will often find that you are surrendering too much board control and facing an uphill battle from the first dice roll. Given that breaking and wounding the enemy leader only offer 1VP each, Domination is a rare scenario in which you can fairly comfortably chuck bodies forward with reckless abandon. 

The scenario promotes positive, aggressive play and often becomes a real slugfest. The only issue for me is that it requires models to end the game within range of the objective and the game doesn't end until 25%. This means you're likely to face plenty of courage tests for being broken before the game ends and orcs and many other evil armies don't like courage tests! It is hugely frustrating when 4 orcs flee for their very lives on an objective you thought was safe and secure. It's even worse when the lonely elf warrior of your opponent's smugly passes every check needed for 3 turns. This means good armies typically win out in the end game of Domination, but a smart evil player never leaves home without packing their trusty shaman in his back pocket. The scenario is also very hard for smaller, elite armies. Numbers are key to Domination so make sure you're bringing plenty of bodies. 

Scenario rating: 4/5 

Capture and Control

By holding key strategic points, both armies believe they can control the field of battle and use these tactically important locations to force their enemy in to defeat. Whoever controls the battlefield will have gained an important foothold for the many battles yet to come. - Matched Play Guide (pg. 19).

What a great scenario! For me, Capture and Control takes all of the small drawbacks of Domination, screws them up, throws them in the bin and leaves behind a stellar scenario for any type of player and any type of army. Again, 5 objectives are placed before the game but, this time, in a predesignated plus (+) shape. The deployment once again allows centre line deployment, although high dice rolls for warbands mean you can deploy further back, and, as before, the centre line is where you should be deploying. 

The major difference in Capture and Control is that you don't control objectives by having more models by them. Instead, a friendly model tags an objective which you gain control of over the end turn and any objectives which friendly and enemy models in base contact stay neutral. This is brilliant as you can 'tag and go' objectives and don't have to leave a portion of your army sitting on an objective, twiddling their thumbs. It means small, elite armies can compete with bigger armies. Having more models still offers a small advantage but a smart player will manoeuvre in a way to remove this bonus. The game also ends differently, this time on a 1-2 when one force is reduced to 50%. All of a sudden, every turn becomes massively important as it may end up being the last of the game. This adds extra tension and excitement to the game. I distinctly remember one game at 'W.A.R of the Ring' where the game refused to end and it boiled down to 1 uruk-hai crossbowman against Glorfindel on foot and a single Numenorean warrior! Capture and Control always seems to create memorable and interesting games for both players. What more can we ask for?

Scenario rating: 5/5

Breakthrough

With both forces locked in a battle for supremacy, both sides know that if they can break through their enemy's lines they can seize a valuable strategic point from their foe. - Matched Play Guide (pg. 26).

Added in the Matched Play Guide, Breakthrough rounds of the Hold Objective scenario pool with great addition to the scenarios of MESBG. Prior to the game, 4 objectives are placed in a diamond shape in the middle of the battlefield, 12" apart in each corner of the diamond. VPs are then scored for controlling each objective, achieved by having more models within 3". The twist this time? The objective in your deployment zone is worth only 1 VP, the 2 on the centre line up to 2VPs and your opponent's objective worth up to a huge 4VPs! With 24" deployment zones, it's a third scenario where you deploy as close to your opponent as possible. The highlight of this scenario is the importance of attacking and defending. You don't care about your almost worthless objective but your opponent sure does! It is a case of one man's trash is another man's treasure. There is no point going gung-ho for your opponent's objective if you can't hold your own. This delicate tactical balance provides a scenario which challenges the best generals and leads to close, thoughtful tabletop games. It is worth noting your leader can give away 2VPs in this scenario if killed so they need a little babysitting when compared to the other 2 scenarios in this pool. For me, the only downsides echo those from Domination. Bigger armies will find the scenario easier and evil armies can struggle when they get to the business end of the fighting and start taking courage tests for being broken as this scenario doesn't end until one army is reduced to 25%. However, Breakthrough is another example of an aggressive, in-your-face scenario that creates memorable battles.

Scenario rating: 4/5

The Hold Objective scenario pool is always a welcome sight at any tournament. All 3 scenarios offer well-balanced, positive and tactical gameplay experiences for both players. A strong contender for best scenario pool in the game. Next time we look at the Object scenario pool; they have a hard act to follow!

Thanks for reading,

Kieran

The Lay of the Land: Maelstrom of Battle Scenarios

Today we have the first article in a series which takes an in depth look at the different scenarios in the Matched Play Guide. Which scenarios are the most balanced? Which scenarios are accompanied by a well-earned groan in gaming halls across the country when announced? First up is Pool 1, the Maelstrom of Battle scenarios. Scenarios will be given a rating out of 5, based on how balanced, enjoyable and tactical I feel they are. 

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