|
Post by MrMoo on Jun 10, 2010 14:57:29 GMT 10
Considering all the balancing issues which have become apparent, I might just leave it as straight KP - that way, there's a KP game early on as well, which would help stop high KP armies which are better at objective-based games from dominating early on only to get smacked down the rankings in the last game (or, being unfairly ranked high after a few wins).
I might use the "your surviving KP + enemy killed KP" measure for secondary objectives though in the (physical) objective-based games. Likewise, the two KP games I might put in some (physical) objectives for secondary objectives.
|
|
Jesus
Sergeant
Zombie Cylon Jesus
Doug
Posts: 79
|
Post by Jesus on Jun 10, 2010 19:50:04 GMT 10
I'm actually with Matt on VPs.
Have each player note in the unit descriptions three things - VPs a unit is worth when destroyed - VPs a unit is worth when reduced to x strength - How many models need to be killed before the unit is reduced to x strength
ie: "SM Assault Squad. 270/145 (7)"
|
|
|
Post by Yaleling on Jun 11, 2010 8:41:46 GMT 10
I'm a fan of standard (or close to standard) kill points. I reckon they work strikingly well.
Victory Points have the appearance of being clever but make the game overly simplistic. The more powerful units in the game cost more points and hence grant more VP's when killed/broken. This is doubling up to me. If I go for the enemies most valuable I not only get more VP but I take out the toughest units in their army, crippling the opponents ability to inflict damage, and making victory all the more likely. It is all too...... obvious.
Kill Points forces hard decisions. The more points a unit cost the harder to kill it (often) is. So do I go for the easy kills and kill points, or try and take out the tougher units and cripple the enemy army? I like that. And kill points forces hard choices during army selection. More but smaller units makes objective missions easier with more scoring or contesting units. But kill points balances the desire for multiple small units, and makes larger harder to destroy units more attractive. I think that balance is vital.
|
|
|
Post by Yaleling on Jun 11, 2010 8:55:50 GMT 10
Scenario 1I didn't want to make it 12", as that gimps firepower armies a bit too much. I just wanted to avoid the whole "objectives in the back corner" thing that seems to happen a bit too often. Fair enough mate. I guess I was thinking too much of the old Take and Hold mission from second edition, where it was my favourite mission. Forcing a confrontation in the centre was great as it forced armies to advance rather than sit back and blast heck out of each other (as was the MO of the time ). But now that I think about it, the game has changed a hell of a lot and that isn't the case so much. 6" is fine. Scenario 3: Team GameI'm thinking of doing a split, mainly because a) I can see 3k points per table getting very crowded very quickly and b) I don't want to force people to have to hang around late if they don't want to. I'm thinking of doing something funky like splitting your army into three and randomly picking two - possibly forcing one to be in reserve, and the other to start on the table? Since battle points don't come into it, I think the random method works fine. (Why care if I get the 'wrong' 500 point blocs and am at a serious disadvantage? ;D) But forcing a separate 1000p list made only from units in the 1500p works too. Just so longs as it is fast and clear in the players pack. Dicking about too much before the team game with army lists could cause an awful lot of angst. Scenario 4: Bunker AssaultI've* done the bunker rules thing before, but it causes problems since technically you can't assault the unit inside the bunker until the bunker's damaged, access points and firepoints are a pain in the butt, etc. *ANUCON08, I co-wrote the scenarios with Gareth Basically, I thought unmodifiable always gets a 3+ save and unmodifiable always gets to strike first when charged would be simpler and easier for people to use. Also doesn't gimp assault-based armies quite as much as the real bunker rules, and it means I don't have to try to balance benefits of destroying bunkers vs trying to shoot everything inside to death. Hmm, I just thought of a problem - how to deal with half a unit being inside the bunker and half a unit outside the bunker? Maybe I just say you have to fit the whole unit in the bunker to get the benefit... Vehicles in bunkers? I don't really see a problem there... Heh. That works pretty well. The pedant in me would just change the word bunker to fortification or emplacement or something. Just 'cos bunkers are already in the core rules.
|
|
|
Post by MrMoo on Jun 23, 2010 13:08:24 GMT 10
I've updated the missions with my current thoughts. If anyone has any further comments, I'll take them on board. I'm leaning on locking down the missions as much as I can ASAP, and I'll work on composition scoring next, followed by painting, sportsmanship, and secondary objectives.
Cheers,
Luke
|
|
|
Post by Yaleling on Jun 25, 2010 8:43:18 GMT 10
The missions look very solid to me now Luke.
(And a fair bit of fun) *Thumbs up*
|
|
|
Post by Caanon on Jun 25, 2010 9:11:50 GMT 10
I still have problems with the team game.
It's potentially forcing players to split transports from their unit making a couple hundred points of useless crap on the table. What good is a Rhino without it's unit and what use is that assault unit without the speed needed to get it to the enemy.
I still believe telling people to bring an alternate list of X points would be the way to go.
|
|
|
Post by MrMoo on Jun 25, 2010 9:26:11 GMT 10
You *can* split transports from their unit and put them in different groups, you don't *have* to. It's up to players to split their army into 3 mostly usable sections but you don't know which will be there at the start of the game, which will turn up from reserves, and which won't make it at all, until right before the game.
Minor edit to the team game, I've added objectives, just to give people something else to aim for apart from just killing the other guy - remember, battle points don't count for the team game, so it's just for something different and (hopefully) fun and lolz as you surround an objective with three drop pods in deployment, thereby making it impossible for anyone to capture it unless you get a "explodes!" result on one of them!
Edit:
Thoughts on a 1000pt sublist, split into two near-equal points valued components, one of which (randomly chosen) is deployed and one of which turns up from reserve, for the team game?
|
|
|
Post by marklp on Jun 25, 2010 12:55:43 GMT 10
Well, i just looked at a 1500 point list i had lying around, and i can comfortably break mine up.. It was 500, 530 and 470 points.
A rhino is only 35 points, it really shouldnt get to the point you have to split them.
A standard marine squad with rhino is what 200-250? two of them together is one squad + a predator would be around then 500-600 mark..a LR with assault termi's are about 500 in itself? I don't see it as a huge problem TBH.
|
|
|
Post by Caanon on Jun 25, 2010 15:07:17 GMT 10
One point thing I'd point out is that it's 35pts for you, some us still have to pay 50pts. And there are other more expensive transports
Going through some of my lists not all of them can be split into blocks because of a lack of of the size of the army.
One major point is that for a tournament I'll build and army designed to work at 1500pts, if I drop 4 or 5 hundred from that the list probably it wont work and I'll have to rely on a random player to make up what I lost. The mix match of units I my side recieves may be useless or can't work with each other so I have crappy game and my experience is ruined. It leaves too much variable for me, I might get a crap list while my opponent gets everthing he wants.
If I have to build a 1000pt list from the start I can take a selection of units that will still work well together so I can have a good game win or lose. One question though is why do we need reserves for this mission? Admittedly I just hate the reserve rules for most my armies but is it really needed for the split list?
|
|
|
Post by marklp on Jun 25, 2010 15:22:56 GMT 10
Err, i never said i played space marines, i play Dark Eldar, and my transport cost 55 points, i just talked in terms of space marines, as they tend to have the most expensive units. Admittedly, the reason i find it easy is i have about 80 points per single kill point, so it tends to fit relatively easily into 500 blocks.
I think the point was to see how well people do together with less then ideal lists, and i actually see it as a challenge, not as a "experience ruining" scenario. The idea with reserves was the same i think.
|
|
|
Post by MrMoo on Jun 25, 2010 19:10:56 GMT 10
My intention for the (non-battle-result-counting) team game is to mix things up, by having it be more than two people a side with stand-alone (or nearly stand-alone) armies which just happen to not be shooting each other. marklp pretty much sums it up, it's to see what you can do with a (probably) less-than-ideal combination of units from two different codexes. Reserves is there so we don't end up with 2k points on the table all at once, and also to add to the mayhem.
The team game is the one game I can get away with randomness, and maybe I've gone overboard with it - but it's the only game where being screwed over by randomness doesn't matter, where if you can't possibly win the game doesn't matter, where if you're just playing for the story, hilarity, or memorable moments of glory rather than the big win doesn't matter. The idea is that you have to do the best you can with what you get, rather than having the uber list and tactics worked out in advance.
There will be randomness in the team game, whatever happens. Currently it's randomness for both what you get, and when you'll get it.
Matt, what I'm hearing from you is that you don't like the randomness. Would reducing it down to "Thoughts on a 1000pt sublist, split into two near-equal points valued components, one of which (randomly chosen) is deployed and one of which turns up from reserve, for the team game?" as I stated earlier still be too random for you? Or would you prefer the other way around, where you don't know which 900-1100 points you'll get but they're all deployed?
|
|
|
Post by Yaleling on Jun 26, 2010 10:19:22 GMT 10
Personally I like the randomness of the team game - it further reinforces the non-competitive nature of the round. As I see it, the challenge is can I cope with the wild card of a partner I've never worked with before and a potentially silly army of my own. So if I get 'wrong' 2 thirds of my army and the 'wrong' third turns up first I may have to cope with no synapse (Yay for leadership 6 troops who can't shoot and can't fight!) and weapons/units who are complete ineffectual against the enemy. All while my partner tears off to fight his own battle. So I reckon this round is all about maintaining composure if/when everything goes to hell.
|
|