The only caveat to this last point is made on a case by case basis. Don’t sacrifice them for an early point, as the scenario means their deaths will just have been for nothing. If you have stayed defensive, and broken a few waves of outriders against your lines, your own objective grabbers are far more likely to be able to earn their place in your lists, towards the end. This forces the game into one where players will have to gamble on how much of their force they can break off and reasonably expect to take an objective with.ĭepending on the match-up and army compositions, this can be a scenario best played for the later turns.
If a player over-commits to one side, consider doing the same on the other. Holding two objectives decisively is the bare minimum you must do to succeed, so start there. It is that third VP option that actually wins this scenario in most cases. Assume the score will be floating around a draw until someone begins taking held objectives. Total Conquest largely requires commitment to holding an objective, essentially permanently. In any of those cases, knowing where your opponent is likely to push first, is in your favor.
One can deploy centrally, or spread, implying they want to try taking both “no man’s land” objectives, or they will go strong on one side or the other. Players really only start with three meaningful options. In a twist on normal AoS logic, having a greater number of unit drops can actually be somewhat advantageous. This scenario rewards patience, with bursts of aggression.
0 kommentar(er)
