Champion Secondary Missions and List Writing

The new ITC missions are here and everyone is scrambling to revamp their lists to deal with them- but there’s a lot more to look at in choosing your secondary missions than most players realize, and it can significant affect which army you choose to play and how you write your list.

The ITC Champion Missions are a significant divergence from the previous ITC missions.  Unlike before, where you had six distinct missions (each based off one of the book missions) which scored alongside a pseudo-maelstrom mission, in the Champion missions you have a single “general” mission with different objective placement (and deployment) each time in combination with eight secondary missions that you can choose from. Although the changes to the “general” missions are quite important and worthy of being discussed, that isn’t what I’m going to focus on this time- instead, I’d like to talk about how the secondary mission choices should be influencing how you write and think about lists.

The secondary missions are a major point of variance in the ITC Champion mission pack. It is a safe assumption that, bar tabling, a player will earn 2pts each turn off of the primary mission (one for holding an objective, one for killing a unit.) The two additional points each battle round (for holding more objectives and killing more units) will be distributed between the two players, creating what we might term our “primary” variance of up to 12pts (i.e. 2pts per turn.) However, all of these points rely on essentially the same metrics- you want to hold objectives and kill units as much as possible. Armies with good board control and good resilience will do well on the primary portion of the missions, and I think most people understand that.

However, the secondary missions are somewhat less obvious in how they influence things. Up to 12pts are available for the secondary missions for each player, and these points are scored individually- one player’s ability to score secondary points has no direct relation on the other. However, these secondary missions are also where choices at the list-writing and pre-game steps can have the most influence on things- I’ve seen many players make poor choices in selecting their secondaries and as a result score very poorly on the mission as a whole. Similarly, certain unit choices can give away secondary points incredibly easily- it’s possible for a single model to give up as much as nine points of the maximum twelve towards the secondary missions when it dies, though obvious this is an extreme case. More generally, however, some lists will be easy to score points against with these missions while others will not, and players who optimize their lists with these factors in mind can garner a significant edge in scoring and hence do much better during their games.

So let’s go through the secondary missions one by one with an eye towards how they’ll each function during a game and how we are likely to score them.

Headhunter: 1pt each time you destroy an enemy character

This one is pretty straightforward- kill characters, get points. It acts as a mild deterrent for lists that run a lot of characters in them- I say “mild” because by their very nature characters are typically rather hard to get rid of, being protected against shooting as they are. With almost every list out there fielding at least three characters simply due to the basic qualifications of most detachments, this one is hard to optimize against in the extreme- but many lists will only bring 3-4 possible targets and several of them will be utility characters that prefer to hide in the back and thus are difficult to get rid of. On the other hand, it can be a big disincentive for lists that rely heavily on aggressive short-range characters to do their heavy lifting, as in those circumstances it is a pretty easy 4pts.

Kingslayer: 1pt for every 2 wounds dealt to a single character (3 wounds if it has the vehicle/monster keyword)

Commonly confused with Headhunter, this one essentially acts as a replacement for Slay the Warlord (which is notably absent in the Champion missions.) As your opponent will get to pick the character, rather than you getting to choose your warlord, it’s not exactly equivalent, but the same basic mechanic is there. Since virtually no characters are less than four wounds and quite a few of them are six or more, this one is often a relatively easy set of points- though as we noted in Headhunter, the character status itself offers a decent bit of protection. However, for characters with ten wounds or more this can be quite punishing- Hive Tyrants, Longstrike, Magnus, etc, all are virtually guaranteed to give up full points for Kingslayer. It’s also worth noting that the wounds lost are kept track of across deaths/resurrections- so Celestine, Ghilleman, or an Avatar popping back to life will continue to award points on their second incarnation. Since all of these are targets you will almost certainly want to be killing by the end of the game in any case, since they are either centerpieces for an army or highly aggressive, it shouldn’t be a hard choice to take Kingslayer in these instances.

The Reaper: 1pt for every unit of 10 or more models, 2pts if it was 20 or more models.

This is a big one right here. While killing off big horde units (the nominal point) can be difficult, especially in the case of stuff like 30-strong Ork Boyz or 50-strong Mutant Rabble, you don’t need to be getting rid of huge units to score a lot of points here- 1pt each for medium-sized squads can also add up really quickly against an army that fields very many of them. Reaper should be a huge consideration in designing your army- where at all possible, do not give your opponent an easy 4pts here because that is going to make winning games quite a bit harder. Put those Heavy Weapon Teams into your IG squads, shy away from minimum-size Cultists and maximum-size Tacticals, etc, etc.

Recon: 1pt if you have at least one unit in all four table quarters at the end of your turn.

This one is an easy “default” for a lot of players when other options look unpalatable, but scoring maximum off of it can be fairly difficult when your game is going downhill, as you probably won’t have sufficient control of the board and/or unit count to keep doing this for long. However, it’s very easy to get 2ish points from Recon, which means it sometimes will be a thing you take regardless. In any case, it is a big bonus for armies that field some kind of reserve units that can easily get where you need them.

Big Game Hunter: 1pt for every model with 10+ wounds you destroy.

This is another one where your choices can make a big difference. Although vehicles and other large targets can bring a lot of firepower to a list, they are quite vulnerable to many of the high-damage weapons out there and can easily be focused down by certain types of lists. Knowing that, Big Game Hunter is a very easy choice against an army that fields any significant number of vehicles- these are targets that you are probably going to want to kill already in order to degrade the firepower of your enemy’s list, so you’re not even going to have to make any special effort in order to get these points. Note that “light” vehicles such as Dreadnoughts, Sentinels, etc, won’t qualify for this and thus come at a significant advantage here.

Titanslayer: 1pt for every 8 wounds you deal to a Titanic model.

Although generally not an option, against any list with one or more superheavies this should be a pretty obvious choice. Knights start at 24 wounds, which is three points right off the bat- and more if they’re running more than one of them (though of course you’re limited to four points for any given mission.) In combination with Big Game Hunter and/or Kingslayer, this can potentially earn you quite a few points- but remember that Magnus/Mortarion are not Titanic units and even a Knight warlord is not a character. The presence of Titanslayer makes splashing a single superheavy into an army even less enticing of a proposition than it might otherwise be- although a lone Knight might not allow your opponent to max their points out, it does give them the opportunity to score very close to with only a pretty finite effort that they would almost certainly need to undertake anyways, and even in a losing game it lets them get a large chunk of points before they go out.

Behind Enemy Lines: 1pt for each unit within 12″ of the enemy board edge at the end of the game.

This one is… not great, for a variety of reasons. The biggest strike against it is that it doesn’t score until the end of the game- so in situations where you are losing (and thus probably losing most of your units in the process), you are likely to get zero points out of it. But even in a winning game you are likely to take a lot of attrition in the process (unless you’re completely devastating your opponent), which means you probably aren’t going to have a ton of units that you can move into the enemy deployment zone. And even if none of those things are true- you make it to the end of the game, winning, with lots of units, you still are going to need at least three units that aren’t sitting on an objective (because you will still need units on objectives every turn) in order to get any real mileage out of it. Long story short, don’t take Behind Enemy Lines.

Death By One Thousand Cuts: 1 pt each battle round that you kill three or more units.

This one is a lot harder than people tend to think for a lot of reasons. Getting it on turn 1 or turn 2 isn’t that hard- both players are going to be hitting each other pretty hard during the early turns of the game, so while it’s not trivial to do, you should be able to accomplish it without too much going out of your way. However, as the game goes on there will be fewer of your units on the field and fewer enemy units as well- that means less firepower on your side to do work and less easy targets to nick a point off of. So while you can certainly get a couple points off it, scoring a full four is going to be quite difficult- that assumes, at the very least, that your opponent had twelve units to kill and that you got rid of them in just the right sequence, which is a pretty high bar to clear.

In Summation

There’s no way to build an army that doesn’t give up any points on the secondaries- but you can minimize the easy points you give away to your opponent, and you by all means should. Games are won and lost by playing to the mission, and with the ITC Champion missions that means writing a list that is capable of both gaining points for itself and minimizing the points it gives to the opponent. If you can max out your secondaries will ensuring that the enemy can only score 1-3pts on each of theirs, you are in a very good position to win even if the other player is consistently ahead of you on both kills and objectives. A list that avoids focusing too heavily in one area, having three or four or more secondaries where the opponent can realistically score perhaps 2pts each, but not max out any of them, is in a very good position indeed.

Tags:

About abusepuppy

AbusePuppy is the one who has been ruining 40K for everyone this whole time. He is also searching for the six-fingered man and is one of the three people who know the secret recipe for coke (not the soda, the illegal drug.)

29 Responses to “Champion Secondary Missions and List Writing”

  1. Biasco November 22, 2017 5:47 am #

    I will be running a tourney in NJ in January. I think first one here using champion missions . I’ll keep everyone posted.

  2. Kevin Lantz November 22, 2017 8:31 am #

    Don’t forget against Tau kill three might be super easy if they are running two or more drones with each unit… Because the drones are all their own units of usually 2-4

    • abusepuppy November 22, 2017 9:11 am #

      This is unfortunately one of the things that has really put the nail in the coffin for Tau- they have a lot of characters, a lot of things with 10+ wounds, a lot of individual units, and basically give up victory points left and right no matter what you do. The faction as a whole isn’t as bad as it’s sometimes made out to be, but they will struggle to hold objectives (as Tau have always struggled to do so) and will struggle to kill more units than the opponent (because of the sheer number of units they field.) It’s not a great place to be.

      • Kevin Lantz November 22, 2017 10:02 am #

        Yeah, currently my best list I use has around 16 drops and about 24 units

        • Kevin Lantz November 22, 2017 10:04 am #

          It performs well but I have to plan on giving up first blood and first turn and a myriad of other small objectives

  3. Reecius
    Reecius November 22, 2017 1:57 pm #

    I like you analysis AP, be interested to get another take after we update the missions.

    • Troy Graber November 23, 2017 5:11 pm #

      When can we be expecting the updates? I’m curious if you attempted a solution for the Hive Tyrant problem illustrated by Hiveminded below.

      Also interested to see if you fix the ability for an infantry squad taking a heavy weapon giving them protection from the Reaper secondary.

      I really like these ITC Champs missions. Really, really like them, and am hoping that some neat and creative solutions are forthcoming.

  4. Hotsauce November 23, 2017 12:53 am #

    Kingslayer did a number on my list sadly. I was running pask and sadly he gives up both head hunter and kings layer.
    Headhunter does a major headache to any IG army too.

  5. Hiveminded November 23, 2017 7:27 am #

    So let me get this straight….if I try to run a hive tyrant and he dies (which he will), I give up:

    1) A kill point
    2) A point against big game hunter
    3) A point against headhunter
    3) FOUR points against kingslayer

    Looks rediculously unbalanced. Am I missing something?

    • abusepuppy November 23, 2017 10:21 am #

      Well, it depends no which secondary objectives your opponent took- Big Game Hunter, Kingslayer, and Headhunter would obviously be all three of their secondaries, but if they chose to take them, then yes. This is one of the reasons that “big” characters like the Tyrant are a bit problematic right now, as they can easily give up a lot of points.

      That said, though, most people are not going to take Headhunter against a Tyranid army (since they don’t typically field huge numbers of characters, and the ones they do field are pretty tough) and whether they take BGH will depend a lot on your army- that was essentially the point of the article. If you only have 2-3 models with 10+ wounds in your army, your opponent is going to be a bit more leery of selecting BGH off the list, and even more so if you’re taking steps to protect them (Catalyst, Tyrant Guard, etc.) There’s a lot you can do to change the game before you even start playing it.

      Frontline has also stated that these versions of the missions are not permanent and that they intend to update them over time, but we work with what we have right now.

      • Hiveminded November 24, 2017 6:31 am #

        Yeah…so as a Tyranid player, you’re supposed to:

        1) Avoid hive tyrants…because you know, they concede 7 points,
        2) Avoid monsters with more than 10 wounds (i.e. every monster in the book that isn’t a carnifex,
        3) Avoid swarms of little bugs.

        Doesn’t sound reasonable to me. I appreciate the article, but these missions need work. They aren’t ready for prime time.

        Some armies (like Eldar) could reasonably get away with spamming a unit like vypers and make their army effectively immune to giving up secondary points. Other armies like tyranids are screwed regardless of which build you go with.

        • abusepuppy November 24, 2017 9:26 am #

          A Tyrant can give up a maximum of six points, not seven- and again, that’s contingent on your opponent selecting exactly the right three secondaries (which may not otherwise be ideal against your list.)

          All lists will have _some_ secondaries they give up- if nothing else, Death by One Thousand Cuts will do the job for an extreme MSU army that has minimized all of its other stuff. The point is not to prevent the enemy from scoring ANY points (because that is impossible), but to prevent them from scoring points without otherwise compromising your list. Tyranids can certainly have issues there, but I don’t feel they are exceptionally bad off in that respect. Consider the following list:

          JORMUNGANDR BATTALION
          -Malanthrope
          -Neurothrope
          -19 Genestealers
          -19 Genestealers
          -3 Rippers
          JORMANGUNDR BATTALION
          -Malanthrope
          -Neurothrope
          -3 Rippers
          -3 Rippers
          -30 Hormagaunts
          -3 Raveners
          -3 Raveners
          KRONOS SPEARHEAD
          -Malanthrope
          -Exocrine
          -Exocrine
          -3 Biovores
          -3 Biovores

          It’s just a rough version, but it’s relatively close to what a lot of Tyranid players are aiming towards. It has a total of five characters- all of them protected against shooting and most of them with a -1 to hit penalty. It does have three large infantry units, which can theoretically score the full 4pts for The Reaper… but you’ve got to get rid of almost 70 models to do so, and they’ll be locked in combat early. It has a pair of monsters in it to score some Big Game Hunter, but you’ll only get two points there maximum, so that’s not an attractive idea. Kingslayer is likewise not terribly enticing, and it has few enough “disposable” units that Death By One Thousand Cuts is unlikely to be plausible.

          To varying degrees, all armies can optimize for the Champion missions. That one particular unit in the Tyranid codex gives up a lot of points is nothing to be surprised about- there are other units that also give up 3-7VP when they die, too, they’re hardly unique in that regard. All missions will, to varying degrees, favor or disfavor particular units; that’s how the game is.

          • Hiveminded November 24, 2017 10:59 am
            #

            Killing a hive tyrant gives up six secondary points and ensures one primary kill point in the turn….so seven points from killing a single model.

            You can see the negative impact of these missions in your above list example….the mission drives people to spam things like malanthropes, neurothropes, and biovores….all medium sized units that are easy to hide so difficult to kill.

            Having lots of model variety is good for the game. Having missions that drive people to spam a subset of available models is not good for the game. Do we really need to see three malanthropes and biovores in every Nid list? We just came from an edition in which nid players were forced into a single flyrant spam list build….bleh.

            Adding an additional secondary that would discourage such spam is good for the game.

          • Reecius
            Reecius November 24, 2017 11:21 am
            #

            You’re exaggerating the issue, honestly. I see your point and it is valid, but not to the degree to which you are describing it. We had a Dreadnought army at SoCal and it was no big deal, his opponent’s still got wins off of him and he brought the army not to game the system but because it was just his army.

            And competitive Nid lists is going to have Malanthropes and Biovores regardless of the format. They’re some of the best things available to them.

            What we’ve found in practice is that some people try to game the system but find that the benefits are not actually so dramatic as you may think they are. For example, I still always take 30 strong units of Bugs, and who cares if my opponent can get max Reaper points? So what, the benefit to full sized units outweighs the possible detriment of losing that point.

            And, as we are modifying some of the generic secondaries to be able to be achieved regardless of what your opponent brings, the incentive to game the missions in your list reduces as your opponent can get max points regardless. It seems like you were unaware of the changes we have already proposed in that regard, though, so fair enough.

            And yes, some models can give up a lot of points. That is by intent. If that means you may choose not to take one, so be it, but there were no shortage of Magnus, Mortarion, Bobby G, etc, at any of the events we’ve run with the Missions. Those models are still good enough to justify the potential negative for most folks we’ve observed. The idea was to make it a riskier choice, which it is. If the risk is worthwhile or not is up to the individual. We are still debating not allowing any secondaries to overlap on a single model but the issue is then that you can game the system the other way and it confuses people. As stated, it hasn’t been that big of a deal in reality.

          • zyekian November 24, 2017 12:47 pm
            #

            Gotta say I strongly agree with Hive’s point about these missions driving people to spam medium-type units like biovores in order to minimize opponents being able to reap points off them. These missions strongly incentivize people to make AP’s list: sit back in cover with a venomthrope/malanthrope covering your spammed-out medium shooty bugs.

            As AP said, that’s the list many Tyrannid players are aiming towards. Add in ITC missions making that list substantially more desirable and makes it more difficult to compete by deviating into units that give up more points.

            The fact that biovores and malanthropes are undercosted makes it worse of course.

            I’m looking forward to hearing more of what Reece is talking about regarding changing secondaries to be less dependent on what opponents bring though. That sounds excellent, whatever it is.

            I also hear what Reece is saying about Bobby G, Morty, Magnus, etc potentially giving up a lot of points and that’s good to hear. I doubt Hiveminded will be happy having a Tyrant placed in league with them though. 🙂

            I want to get out and stress test these missions more… Unfortunately the ITC events in our region aren’t yet willing to give these a full-go yet.

  6. Hiveminded November 24, 2017 8:02 am #

    So….some constructive feedback…here are two suggestions:

    1) Kingslayer: Add a line that says….the model chosen for this secondary objective is then immune from generating points towards other secondary onjectives (e.g. headhunter or big game hunter, etc.).

    2) Add a new secondary objective called “Even the Odds”. Even the Odds: Select one enemy unit type that is not a troop. For each unit of this type destroyed, earn one victory point.

    • Reecius
      Reecius November 24, 2017 9:18 am #

      Yeah, we were already planning on rolling out the limitation on overlapping secondaries. That had come up a while back and we had already said we were going to do it but, thank you for the feedback.

      Even the Odds is a cool idea but causes it’s own issues as Zyekian mentioned.

      We’ve obviously played the missions a ton and we’ve found that a little list altering to function within them is fine, but ultimately if someone takes a 19 man unit instead of 20 it really isn’t that big of a deal.

      • C-Stock November 24, 2017 9:49 am #

        I actually like Hives ideas but yeah stupid Knight lists as Zykian said would profit too much.

      • Hiveminded November 24, 2017 10:35 am #

        Every list should be susceptible to giving up secondaries.

        The fact that it’s possible to build a list that is basically immune (see vyper spam, dreadnought spam, etc.) speaks to a deficiency in the mission design.

        Something to discourage spam…like “Even the Odds” would make it much more diificult to create lists that are immune to giving up secondaries. It penalizes people for spamming one particular type of unit and encourages variety in list building. If there is concern about venoms giving up points, you could simply make troops and dedicated transports immune.

        • Reecius
          Reecius November 24, 2017 11:12 am #

          They’re not immune to giving up points, though. You can max points on any army, it may just require choosing other options like Recon, Behind Enemy Lines (which has been changed to be easier to get), etc. Plus, we’ve included in Old School, which is the classic bonus points so to speak, first strike, slay the warlord, linebreaker and a bonus point if you get all 3. Players can score max points regardless of what their opponent brings.

          And Even the Odds creates more opportunities for stacking secondaries, if you had say, lots of Leman russes, you could do that and Big Game Hunter and now they each give up 2 points, etc. If it is also a character, now 3 with Head Hunters, so on and so forth. That is why we didn’t do it initially.

  7. zyekian November 24, 2017 9:04 am #

    I agree with A-puppy and Hiveminded, these missions simply don’t work for units like the Hive Tyrant. They’re unplayable in this format. I wouldn’t even bring one for a friendly match under these missions, they’re that much of a liability.

    The solutions presented by Hive present other problems though. On the surface it sounds like a simple solution to have objectives not snowball. But what if someone is playing a list with just knights? You need to be racking up points in clusters when you do fell a Baneblade or whatever and well, you probably deserve it.

    Even the Odds comes with its own set of problems for units such as Dark Eldar, Harlequins, and other armies that have no real choice but to run MSU. Those armies end up with a whole lot of squishy-target points on the board when someone calls out dedicated transports or something. Those armies are already miles behind the 8-ball in their index incarnations… Hard to make a good assessment without knowing their future codex selves, but I think it’s safe to say they will have a lot of squishes to squish.

  8. zyekian November 24, 2017 9:12 am #

    Going back to the Eldar Vyper spam thing (or War Walker spam), it actually does sound good in these missions.

    A unit of 3x Vypers sporting dual shuriken cannons, that’s ~200 points for 18xS6 “rending” shots…. 18 wounds, 3+ armor, and either -1 to hit it or FnP 6+. Or hell, even cram in a much-maligned (by me, lol), aka much-celebrated (by Reece) Biel-Tan detachment, and you have a punchy affordable unit that’s highly resistant to surrendering points in this format.

    And it moves 20″, dumping buckets of ninja stars all over.

    Viva La Vyper!

    • Hiveminded November 24, 2017 10:42 am #

      It’s not good…it’s broken.

      Why should it be possible to field a list that can’t surrender secondaries (vyper spam, dreadnought spam, carnifex spam,…) while other armies are forced to field models that can surrender four points for a single kill? Games should be decided on the tabletop, not decided because one player brings a list that can’t give up secondary points.

      8E is doing a good job of making all units playable. These missions are a step backward toward that goal because certain units just make your list too vulnerable to surrendering secondaries.

      • C-Stock November 24, 2017 11:54 am #

        I also suspect this will be true. Fewer units will be competitive. Tables will be less diverse.

  9. zyekian November 24, 2017 12:59 pm #

    On an Elfy note, Guardians are extinct under this system. No reason to bring them with a 10-model minimum to cough up needless reaper points…

    … not when Storm Guardians, which were already more useful, start at 8 models per unit.

    At a certain point it’s all about trying to game the system I guess.

    • abusepuppy November 25, 2017 8:36 pm #

      Everything is always about gaming the system. That’s why we’re playing a game.

      Bringing one or two squads of Guardians is fine if you don’t have any other 10-strong infantry units, since very few opponents are going to want to take Reaper just to get 2pts out of it. But a full Guardians army is a great way to hemmorhage points for sure.

  10. Jimbojones November 24, 2017 2:30 pm #

    Good review and tips AbusePuppy. Thanks man.

    I do agree with the people posting though. It is like these scenarios are designed to promote some types of lists and units and demote others, and they just do it in an uneven way.

    The intentions being them are good though.

  11. C-Stock November 24, 2017 6:31 pm #

    Reece, Zyekian is right, these rules kill off Defender Guardians. There’s no reason to ever play them now because Storm Guardians give up half the points.

    Personally I like guardians but they’re borderline at best, never seen in competitive lists. These rules mean they’re a joke.

    Here’s the thing, if you’re going to make up all these quasi-arbitrary criteria for what units need to be doing in games, you need to openly acknowledge the fact that these criteria are YOUR personal values as to how games need to be played and what units should do. (Or the values of whatever group is cobbling this stuff together.

    And yes it is arbitrary. When your mission says it’s worth a point to kill a unit of 10 Guardians but zero points to kill nine storm guardians, that is the essence of arbitrary.

    Don’t get me wrong, I’ll definitely give a nod to being able to pick which one of many arbitrary objectives I can seek, but still. And more importantly my opponent get to pick all this stuff he can score That I have no say over. He gets mega points for chopping up my characters…

    I have a Dark Eldar army. Are you saying my opponent gets a stack of points for killing my Succubus that’s designed to be fragile and in the front lines, playing borderline suicidal just as the fluff intends? That’s 3 VPs for kingslayer, 1 for headhunter, plus the primary, all because well, Dark Eldar stuff is glass. I feel like I’m back to 7th edition where it was simply too costly to put DE HQs into combat because they just got doubled up. The cost outweighed the benefit which was incredibly un-fun and this returns is to that.

    Thats crap. It makes my succubi unplayable on top of Dark Eldar already being plain bad under these rules. Dark Eldar are never going to protect VPs because their army isn’t meant to do things like sustain attacks.

    Factor in that Dark Eldar usually go second and these missions are a recipe for turn one concessions even more than they are now.

    Lastly, to take what others said a step further, these missions throw point values out of whack. You’re fundamentally changing the values of a whole bunch of units, some dramatically. So I’m response points need to be adjusted accordingly, again some dramatically. I don’t want to pay full cost for my necron warriors anymore. People with half a brain go all-out to finish up squads because of reanimattion. But now that not only gives up primary, but I also give up a point for losing a unit with 10+ models in it. I have no way around it like every other army does out there. All other armies can take smaller units of troops while I have to sling out 10-man units.

    So I trust FLG is coming out with a customized point system for everything in the game? That way storm Guardians and Warriors can at least cost less for being big fat liabilities while Biovores can cost a lot more for excelling I’m this format?

    I don’t mean to sound overly salty here (too late I’m sure lol). But absolutely none of this looks ready for prime time, nor does it look balanced at all. It really seems like you guys got so lost on your quest to make things more balanced, that you ended up tossing in all this fiddly stuff with weird and wildly unfair impacts across the game. You’re on your way to even less balance IMO, and the result will be a narrower range of competitive armies and a maybe less unit diversity as well.

    Will the units relegated to cruddy liability status be offset by other units coming to the forefront? Yes? No? Maybe?

    It’s really a mess.

    • Jimbojones November 25, 2017 7:31 am #

      Woah. Good post cstock. Really good post.

Leave a Reply