Stone Corridors comments on our scenario

We are actively working on scenarios for Valhalla, an event with narrative/themed games. Miniatures battles as challenging as ever, but with a storytelling bent.

Here's what he had to say.


And more comments from another viewer:

Hello Shawn,

This is in response to the epic show-down that was the recent Blood Angels
v. Orks batrep that you and the guys posted. First, that board is
out-freaking-standing. And the armies, as always, looked fantastic. Second,
it's always great to see a great game, with great sportsmanship. You all
always seem to have a ton of fun. Now, on to the scenario:

I'm a fan of objective scenarios in wargames, and the one you presented is a
pretty standard objective style game. I have a few observations based on
some of the criticism that it's gotten.

1. Objectives in the starting areas (or close to the starting areas): As
people have pointed out, and I think someone during the game noted this too
(perhaps you Shawn?), objectives in the starting area don't mean too much.
However, I'd like to pose a counter-argument for keeping them, or at least
one of them. Without at least one objective in the starting area, there is
no incentive to start a Troops choice in that area. Why not deep strike all
of your troops (if possible), to get to the objectives faster? An objective
in the starting area also keeps even the worst match from being a shut-out,
which is just a nice perk for some of us.

2. I've heard at least one call to make starting areas the short edge so the
game board becomes longer. It seems to me the idea is to have two armies
rush towards each other and meet to fight it out in the middle areas. The
faster that happens the better, in my opinion. This also keeps deepstriking
from being a complete game winner. In a long board, a deepstriking army
could potentially drop on the fifth marker (or the "game winning" marker),
then backtrack towards their starting area picking up the rest of "their
side" markers while the other army is busy trying to catch up to them. This
is still a viable strategy in a shorter board (at least theoretically), but
takes a lot more work to pull off.

3. And last, I've read some complaints about how the game ended as a draw
but with the Blood Angels wiped off the board. Frankly, I think that's
outstanding. Objective-based games aren't about killing all of the enemy.
It's about accomplishing objectives. And I feel like 40k is the perfect game
to have an army get wiped out to the model while also being successful at
its goal. Is there anything better than three units of Blood Angels giving
their lives in a last stand against a Waaagh! of Orks in order to keep the
greenskins from winning? You don't need to wipe out an enemy to break them.
Which is something signified by the use of Troops choices to take
objectives. Support and elite troops are great for taking the battle to the
enemy, but troops are how you sustain a war. There's an extra level of
tactics involved in a game when your goals are to kill your enemies Troops,
keep your Troops alive, while also taking objectives. Killing everything
else of theirs will make your job easier, but it won't win you the battle.
And that's what makes objective-based games more interesting than all out
battles. So, bottom line is, above anything else, please don't make wiping
out the enemy a win. Sacrifice is what 40k is all about.

Thanks for reading,
Jason