Battleground Games Forum
Games Workshop => Warhammer 40K => Topic started by: Chase on January 16, 2010, 07:03:21 PM
-
Can one, some, or all of you please post (in detail) how the claiming / contesting of objectives worked in the two test Megabattles this past year?
-
It worked based upon the normal 40k rules. At least one scoring troops choice had to be within 6" of the objective, with no other troops (scoring or not) within in order to claim it.
-
Year One we did it that any troops on an objective claimed the objective for their side at the end of the game. Any vehicles or other force within 6" controlled by an oppposing team member contested it.
Last year it was that only an Infantry troop choice could claim and hold an objective, also the objective once controlled could only be contested by an infantry troop choice of an opposing team.
Last year's scoring was something that the store came up with and not per the current scoring rules of either apocalypse or normal 40k.
-
I'm curious about what went on in the two test Megabattles that were played over this past year.
I was lead to believe that some sort of "point value" was given to each kind of model and objectives were claimed / contested based on whichever side had the most "points" within 6 inches of the objective.
The actual claiming / contesting of objectives is what I'd like to refine next. People seemed unhappy with allowing only troops to claim / contest last year so we might be going with something different this year.
If people have suggestions this is the place to post them. I'd really like to hear opinions and/or ideas.
-
40K, basic rules, page 90 defines 'scoring units' as troops, but not vehicles, not swarms, and not units with special rule saying they can't score. In basic 40K, anything can contest.
I've heard a lot of folks say in Apocalypse anything scores. Looking at page 24 of the Apocalypse rules, "An objective is captured if a player has a scoring unit within 6 inches of it and there are no enemy scoring units within 6 inches of it." Only 'scoring units' can control or contest. I have found no definition of "scoring unit" in the Apocalypse rules. Thus, I would assume that the definition of "scoring unit" from page 90 of the 40K rules would apply... troops, not a vehicle, not a swarm.
If this is the case, the 'official' rule ought to be that only troops (not vehicles, not swarms) can control or contest. If someone could find an Apocalypse definition of 'scoring unit' and prove me wrong, I'd be very pleased.
This doesn't mean we have to pay much attention to the 'official' rule.
I don't particularly care for only troops scoring. I'd like most units on the board able to both control and contest. I just don't see the logic of a single guardsman controlling an objective when a bunch of enemy terminators are standing right next to him. Why are better trained and equipped people unable to claim an objective???
If people want to argue that this type of unit or that can't control or contest, I'm open to discussion. Flyers never count as scoring, for example. (Page 94 of Apocalypse.) Perhaps they should be able to control and contest if they are in hover mode. Swarms and vehicles might also be nominated as types of units that shouldn't control and / or contest. Other types might be proposed.
I'm open to a list of non-scoring and non-contesting unit types, but I'd personally prefer to keep that list very short.
-
Let me throw up a target for people to tweak. This is intended as an initial proposal rather than best and final.
Vehicles and swarms may contest but not control. A vehicle whose armament has been entirely destroyed may not contest.
Other types (infantry, jump infantry, bikes, jetbikes, beasts, cavalry, monstrous creatures, gargantuan creatures, artillery, etc... but excepting flyers) may either control or contest.
Flyers operating at altitude may neither contest or control. Flyers with the hover mode rule acting as skimmers may contest but not control as per other vehicles.
-
The scoring we had discussed for the second test battle was that it was a weighted system like 4th edition where you would have everything count as scoring (sorry but when we talking about EPIC fights, Ensign Ricky and his flashlight should not be the only one allowed to score) and each model had a different point value
1 point - Non Monsterous Creatures (gaunts, guardsmen, sternguard, terminators, etc.)
10 Points - Monsterous Creatures, Non Structure Point Vehicles, Flyers (Daemon Princes, Rhinos, Arvus Lighter)
30 Points - Gargantuan Creatures and Structure Point Vehicles/Walkers (Baneblade, Angrath)
Something that you guys had been discussing was that when you have an objective you need to have X (X was 5 for the discussion) more points than your oppenent in order for you to claim the objective, otherwise you would be tied for the objective. And I believe you were talking about it being with 6" of the object being counted when you were asking for who has what objective
-
Rick has it. The only thing on that list would be the fliers score with hover mode but this was not really tested as we did not have many fliers being used.
It's a great fair way of doing it and horders (like IG and orks) can contribute whole platoons for the price of a baneblade.
-
The scoring we had discussed for the second test battle was that it was a weighted system like 4th edition where you would have everything count as scoring (sorry but when we talking about EPIC fights, Ensign Ricky and his flashlight should not be the only one allowed to score) and each model had a different point value
1 point - Non Monsterous Creatures (gaunts, guardsmen, sternguard, terminators, etc.)
10 Points - Monsterous Creatures, Non Structure Point Vehicles, Flyers (Daemon Princes, Rhinos, Arvus Lighter)
30 Points - Gargantuan Creatures and Structure Point Vehicles/Walkers (Baneblade, Angrath)
Something that you guys had been discussing was that when you have an objective you need to have X (X was 5 for the discussion) more points than your oppenent in order for you to claim the objective, otherwise you would be tied for the objective. And I believe you were talking about it being with 6" of the object being counted when you were asking for who has what objective
How do people feel about this? Personally, I think it seems very easy to manipulate.
Edit: In thinking about it a little more…. I think with some work that it could be okay. Figuring out what the right number for “X†is will be important. Scoring at the top of the round could make something like this a little bit more interesting in my opinion.
I think certain rules or revisions might be needed. For instance, nothing is more lame than packing one of those Baneblade variants full of 40 troops and then parking it on an objective… having it count for 70 points and have a giant footprint that blocks out all sorts of other stuff…. Or in the same line of thinking, a Plague Tower with an even bigger footprint and even more structure points full of 30 dudes doing the same type of thing. In an effort to avoid that shenanigans, models that are not on the table will NOT be counted towards scoring. If the cheese involved here revolves around the fact that the dudes inside the transports get to jump out when the 30 point super-heavy dies, then I’d like to just say that anything with a transport capacity at all can not count for scoring or contesting.
It’s important to me for the game to not degenerate into parking super-heavy transports packed full of stuff on an objective. In my opinion, this type of thing is a shining star example of manipulating this scoring system.
-
Someone afraid I'll bring 1000 4 point zombies to take an objective? :D
What are your concerns?
-
We tested this out and it worked swimmingly. A lot better than last year :P but I guarantee someone will have a problem with this...
-
Honestly I'm much more in favor of the Cinematic\story part of the game, so I tend to lean towards the dreaded realism. Here's a foundation.
1. It takes thought to control anything. And Real estate is controlled using men on the ground.
2. A man looking down the barrel of a cannon on a Tank Cannot be claim to be in control of a whole lot.
3. An Immobilized vehicle, with out dismounted infantry support is a liability, and is only concerned with it's own survival.
4. A mobile Vehicle with weapons is more than capable of making life extremely unpleasant for things around it.
5. All men are not created equal. 10 men are not going to be bothered by 2. However 10 would be concerned and upset by 5. Similarly a greater Daemon would hardly be upset by 5 space marines, but would be concerned by 5 spacemarine terminators (10 models in size) backed up by a fully functioning land raider.
Ok. So a rules proposal.
Objective claiming
To claim the majority of the unit\creatiures base must be within 6 inches of the objective
Only models with a leadership value can claim objectives.
I'd like to make it so that they must be dismounted or in dedicated transports.
Contesting:
Basically Anything except Flyers (in flight mode), Immobilized vehicles or vehicles with no weapons is eligible to contest objectives.
Then we look to Ricks scoring. (though I've modified it slightly)
1 point - Non Monsterous Creatures (gaunts, guardsmen, sternguard, terminators, etc.)
10 Points - Monsterous Creatures, Non Structure Point Vehicles, Flyers (Daemon Princes, Rhinos, Arvus Lighter)
20 Points - Gargantuan Creatures and Structure Point Vehicles/Walkers (Baneblade, Stompa) <500Points in value
25 Points - Gargantuan Creatures and Structure Point Vehicles/Walkers (Titan, Angrath) >500points in value
In order to contest you must:
Have at least 25% of the points of the "Controlling force"
So Angrath could be contested by a squad of 6 guardsman, his attention is distracted by this annoyance, and he will claim blood.
on the flip side, 100 Guardmen cannot claim an objective with Angrath standing on top of it, he's far too distracting.
It's a thought. I thinks it's relatively clear, and meets the spirit of what we're trying to do.
Cheers,
Alan
-
Someone afraid I'll bring 1000 4 point zombies to take an objective? :D
What are your concerns?
Honestly, I'm much less concerned with lots of small stuff than I am with 1 or 2 big things, that are low(er) priority, and have a large footprint.
A team should not "auto claim" an objective because they have a Heirophant sitting on it that happens to be almost impossible to kill (and takes up the entire 1'x1' area used in claiming / contesting the objective).
Thinking about that example is cool in terms of the "story" or the "picture" it might create. If it were to happen by chance it might even be awesome.... The problem comes when people design their armies and plan to take advantage of this type of thing because it easily manipulates the claiming / contesting rules.
-
Well look who was right! Well my oppinion is going to be a question. How complicated do you wanna make things? We had the play test for scorings sake, to find a simple and easy solution to the headache that is coming up with rules. Idk that's just my oppinion...
-
Heirophant, Nick's Emperor class titan can put 50 dudes in it, titans in general, Stormlord and other baneblade variants with troop transport capacity.
I'm against making it complicated.
Both sides are capable of doing the same thing.
Are you saying that 1 guardsman can contest against 100 plague marines?
-
1. It takes thought to control anything. And Real estate is controlled using men on the ground.
2. A man looking down the barrel of a cannon on a Tank Cannot be claim to be in control of a whole lot.
3. An Immobilized vehicle, with out dismounted infantry support is a liability, and is only concerned with it's own survival.
4. A mobile Vehicle with weapons is more than capable of making life extremely unpleasant for things around it.
5. All men are not created equal. 10 men are not going to be bothered by 2. However 10 would be concerned and upset by 5. Similarly a greater Daemon would hardly be upset by 5 space marines, but would be concerned by 5 spacemarine terminators (10 models in size) backed up by a fully functioning land raider.
Ok. So a rules proposal.
Objective claiming
To claim the majority of the unit\creatiures base must be within 6 inches of the objective
Only models with a leadership value can claim objectives.
I'd like to make it so that they must be dismounted or in dedicated transports.
Contesting:
Basically Anything except Flyers (in flight mode), Immobilized vehicles or vehicles with no weapons is eligible to contest objectives.
Then we look to Ricks scoring. (though I've modified it slightly)
1 point - Non Monsterous Creatures (gaunts, guardsmen, sternguard, terminators, etc.)
10 Points - Monsterous Creatures, Non Structure Point Vehicles, Flyers (Daemon Princes, Rhinos, Arvus Lighter)
20 Points - Gargantuan Creatures and Structure Point Vehicles/Walkers (Baneblade, Stompa) <500Points in value
25 Points - Gargantuan Creatures and Structure Point Vehicles/Walkers (Titan, Angrath) >500points in value
In order to contest you must:
Have at least 25% of the points of the "Controlling force"
It's a thought. I thinks it's relatively clear, and meets the spirit of what we're trying to do.
Cheers,
Alan
I tend to agree with a lot of the themes and ideas here, although a major concern of mine is keeping things VERY simple (or as simple as possible).
What do you think of this:
To claim / contest an object the majority of a units models must be within 6 inches of the objective.
Models inside a transport can not claim / contest.
Models that are considered “flying†can not claim or contest.
Immobile or weaponless vehicles can not claim / contest (is this too specific? I feel like it might be).
1 point - Non Monstrous Creatures (gaunts, guardsmen, sternguard, terminators, etc.)
10 Points - Monstrous Creatures, Non Structure Point Vehicles, Flyers (Daemon Princes, Rhinos, Arvus Lighter)
20 Points - Gargantuan Creatures and Structure Point Vehicles/Walkers (everything else)
(I think this weights normal vehicles a little to much, but keeps things simple. I’m very much okay with keeping the “big†stuff at a reduced “value†in terms of claiming / contesting and increasing the relative value of normal troops. I sort of wish I could weight the vehicles at 7 points, but I feel as though that would confuse too many people and make math too difficult.)
In order to contest you must have at least 50% of the points the “controlling†force does. (The goal here is for objectives to be scored often and not always be contested. I feel as though 25% might be too easy to achieve. Does 50% make it both easy enough to accomplish and still allow for the actual scoring of an objective to happen often?)
-
Well look who was right! Well my oppinion is going to be a question. How complicated do you wanna make things? We had the play test for scorings sake, to find a simple and easy solution to the headache that is coming up with rules. Idk that's just my oppinion...
Complicated enough for things not to be super cheesy. :)
-
Heirophant, Nick's Emperor class titan can put 50 dudes in it, titans in general, Stormlord and other baneblade variants with troop transport capacity.
I'm against making it complicated.
Both sides are capable of doing the same thing.
Are you saying that 1 guardsman can contest against 100 plague marines?
I'm against making it too complicated too. I'm even more against things being lame (dudes inside transports claiming / contesting something on the outside of that transport = lame).
1 guardsman contesting against 100 marines was the problem we ran into last year. We want it to be easier to score this time around. Really, we want things to be extremely volatile this year. Easy enough to score, easy enough to contest, and almost always worth while to try and take / claim / contest an objective.
-
With that math, 2 empty rhinos can contest a warhound.
Gw set the 1/ 10 / 30.
The 25% might be better but 50% will lead to contesting.
If you want it more vicious and volatile, make it easier to take control.
-
I understand the concern with the transport issue. A baneblade carrying 40 guardsmen would add up to 70 and be impossible to contest without dedicating alot of forces to remove that brick. But, then doesn't this encourage aggressive play on objectives?
The apocalypse rules book classifies anything gargantuan or superheavy as a 30 size. I think that is good purley because of the nature of the object. Plus, it makes it less ideal for a player to park their super-heavy and blast away. Plus, most of the superheavy transports don't have many fire points. So, if you load one up and park it you make it so you lose all those troops to just sitting and waiting. Also if the super heavy popped the guys inside are not having a nice landing. With the exception of the plague tower which has special rules that make it not hurt any "nurgle" models when it pops.
I like that scoring just because it means that it makes the big stuff a more important target. Your not shooting a titan because its in the distance shelling your army. Story wise and game terms, I don't think we have had Super-heavies amount to much other than a bigger gun. It would be nice to make it so they are game altering in nature.
I wanna see a warhound plop onto an objective and expose its rear armor allowing the opposing to to counter assualt the beast. I want that 40 man baneblade to venture out of the deployment zone to take an objective but have the player be nervous his baneblade has now become more of a target priority than his warhound ally that just flank marched into the battle.
Gargantuan Creature like Anngrath.. Well then if you park him on an objective he's really only fight whoever attacks him. Now how fun is that for the beastie, so that player has to choose. And the Order side can always opt to Mike Do the greater deamon in that situation and just ignore him..
I know this rants may sound more complicated than intend but I think a simple scoring system of wieght. And I like crippled vehicles not counting, you can always say too that a Gargantuan Creature with less than half its wound counts at 15 instead of 30. The heirophant now only needs to suffer 5 wounds to only be able to be contested by 10-15 marines. Which is not that hard with the amount of weapons that cause d3 wounds instead of one. Regen is also only on a 6, I dont see that ability being something that is tipping the scales unless someone's dice are on FIRE that day.
-
The rules we proposed encourage very aggressive game play. I do not understand the problem.
If someone makes the good play of dumping a Stormlord filled with guardsmen on an objective, they'll eat a lot of strength D. Remember, they have to hold it a full turn to score.
-
With that math, 2 empty rhinos can contest a warhound.
Gw set the 1/ 10 / 30.
The 25% might be better but 50% will lead to contesting.
If you want it more vicious and volatile, make it easier to take control.
The math has 1 empty Rhino contesting against a Warhound (50% to contest). 2 empty Rhinos is equivalent to a Warhound. This example does speak to the fact that vehicles are weighted too heavily. I think I might be okay with this... but would prefer to weight them at 7. I do like the big stuff being weighted at a relatively low point value though. The biggest, best stuff in terms of killing and sticking around should not also be the best in terms of taking / claiming / contesting objectives. It gives another advantage to taking big stuff other than it's killing power / survivability. In my opinion this is not good.
I'd imagine GW didn't build their point structure around a game where there are 40 people and almost everyone has a super heavy or four... 30 points is definitely too high for this game. I want to keep troops and smaller stuff very valuable in terms of claiming / contesting objectives. Ground pounders claim territory... If you've got big fancy stuff, take it, enjoy it, and decimate everything with it. I don't think they should be taken specifically, primarily, or even secondarily with objective claiming / contesting in mind and I would like the scoring system in general to reflect this. They CAN do it and they are the most valuable individual models (at 20 points) for doing so.
The 25% vs. 50% thing is sort of interesting… I’m not super confident in how I feel about this and that is due to when scoring takes place (the top of each player turn). 25% after being able to move, shoot, and assault seems like it would be VERY easy to accomplish… I feel like it would lead to objectives being contested much of the time, which is not what we want. It sort of promotes a “land grab†to deny scoring instead of a “land grab†to score. 50% seems like it’s the same basic situation… just a little bit more difficult to achieve. How much more difficult I do not know…. It may not prove to be any different at all. What is the right number here? Should we use a flat point value like Ian suggested? Say… The objective is only “contested†if the point totals around it are within 10 points of each other? 5 points?
Making it easier to take control of an object seems like its entirely in the players hands. If there’s stuff there preventing you from claiming it, you’ve got to remove it and / or move towards it. Reducing or increasing the values we give to certain things can only end up favoring one thing over another, especially in the context of our Megabattle. My preference is to favor troops over anything else, so if the point system HAS to choose something, I’d like it to be troops (the current system clearly favors vehicles, however). If this isn’t what you’re getting at, then I don’t think I understand what you mean by “make it easier to take control.†Can you explain? L
-
I understand the concern with the transport issue. A baneblade carrying 40 guardsmen would add up to 70 and be impossible to contest without dedicating alot of forces to remove that brick. But, then doesn't this encourage aggressive play on objectives?
The apocalypse rules book classifies anything gargantuan or superheavy as a 30 size. I think that is good purley because of the nature of the object. Plus, it makes it less ideal for a player to park their super-heavy and blast away. Plus, most of the superheavy transports don't have many fire points. So, if you load one up and park it you make it so you lose all those troops to just sitting and waiting. Also if the super heavy popped the guys inside are not having a nice landing. With the exception of the plague tower which has special rules that make it not hurt any "nurgle" models when it pops.
I like that scoring just because it means that it makes the big stuff a more important target. Your not shooting a titan because its in the distance shelling your army. Story wise and game terms, I don't think we have had Super-heavies amount to much other than a bigger gun. It would be nice to make it so they are game altering in nature.
I wanna see a warhound plop onto an objective and expose its rear armor allowing the opposing to to counter assualt the beast. I want that 40 man baneblade to venture out of the deployment zone to take an objective but have the player be nervous his baneblade has now become more of a target priority than his warhound ally that just flank marched into the battle.
Gargantuan Creature like Anngrath.. Well then if you park him on an objective he's really only fight whoever attacks him. Now how fun is that for the beastie, so that player has to choose. And the Order side can always opt to Mike Do the greater deamon in that situation and just ignore him..
I know this rants may sound more complicated than intend but I think a simple scoring system of wieght. And I like crippled vehicles not counting, you can always say too that a Gargantuan Creature with less than half its wound counts at 15 instead of 30. The heirophant now only needs to suffer 5 wounds to only be able to be contested by 10-15 marines. Which is not that hard with the amount of weapons that cause d3 wounds instead of one. Regen is also only on a 6, I dont see that ability being something that is tipping the scales unless someone's dice are on FIRE that day.
Do you think 30 is that much better than 20? At 20 are they still not very important? Does it become not a worthwhile strategy to march stuff up there and try to claim / contest at 20?
I think a transport full of troops / dudes / whatever rolling up to an OBJECTIVE and keeping the ground pounders inside yet still getting the benefit of having them is bogus. Isn’t that what the cargo is there to do? Hop out and CLAIM the objective? Models that arent even on the table counting towards objectives is extremely lame, is it not?
I like the idea of stuff counting for half, but it might be getting to complicated there. L
It may not seem like it, but I reall, really appreciate and require feedback here. I am very much asking for your opinions, giving mine back, and asking you guys to explain to me why yours are better for the game we are trying to run.
I know I’ve been coming across a lot more harsh than normal, but I sort of have to. I’m sorry.
-
The rules we proposed encourage very aggressive game play. I do not understand the problem.
If someone makes the good play of dumping a Stormlord filled with guardsmen on an objective, they'll eat a lot of strength D. Remember, they have to hold it a full turn to score.
Does weighting the big stuff at 20 instead of 30 not create for even more aggressive play, or is it the difference between keeping the stuff held back and not?
Is it a good play to roll up on an objective with a super heavy transport full of dudes, or is it trivial, lame, and probably a bit more effective at achieving the overall goal than it should be (both, by nature of the game)? If he does roll up on the objective and deploys his cargo, then fine, cool, things are exactly as intended and he is surely going to attract a lot of fire. That is much more in line with what we want.
These are serious questions. Again, I'm not trying to be a dick.
Edit: I didn't really address your concern. I guess my problem with it is that I feel as though "big stuff" is weighted to heavily at 30 points. I think they are simply too valuable then. I also think that it IS worth considering that we are going to have a LOT of super heavies out there. I do not at all want the game to degenerate into parking super heavies on objectives. I certainly see this as a potential outcome regardless of how we choose to vlaue them.
-
If you're that worried about super heavy transports, I don't see a huge problem with saying embarked units do not add to the total.
I would not like to see super heavies drop below 30 or they will just sit back like they always have.
-
If you're that worried about super heavy transports, I don't see a huge problem with saying embarked units do not add to the total.
Yeah, I definitely don't think that they should.
How do you feel about the 20 point super heavies overall considering the context of our game?
Do you think the 20 vs 30 points makes for much different play with respect to each of them?
-
I ninja-edited my post as you were posting. I think 30 is the way to go.
Also, don't feel worried about looking like a dick. We know where you're coming from. This kind of event needs to be carebear'd a little bit, even if that means the experienced players have to frown a little bit.
-
The issue I see with toning down the worth of superheavies is that it really tones them down.
They simplified it in Apoc to just the amount of models. It was simplified from the model's point value.
So instead of 1 23 point plague marine requiring 4 Guardsmen to take it from him, they only need to have one more model.
So to break the system, one could just take 4000 points worth of plague bearers or horrors. 266 plague bearers or 236 horrors. Only D weapons would scare them and even then, they get a 5+ save or a 4+ save, respectively, from the D weapon.
Devaluing vehicles and superheavies, as previously stated, will make people just sit back with their vehicles and shoot. Titans are now just artillery hanging back and not engaging the enemy. No need to assault or wade into possibly deadly combat when your 750 / 1500 / 2500 or 4000 point titan is only worth 120 points of guardsmen and they all took the meltaguns. No need for powerfists on titans as their choice is made for them.
-
The issue I see with toning down the worth of superheavies is that it really tones them down.
Devaluing vehicles and superheavies, as previously stated, will make people just sit back with their vehicles and shoot. Titans are now just artillery hanging back and not engaging the enemy. No need to assault or wade into possibly deadly combat when your 750 / 1500 / 2500 or 4000 point titan is only worth 120 points of guardsmen and they all took the meltaguns. No need for powerfists on titans as their choice is made for them.
"more experienced players frown" Yes, for sure, especially to hear people's concern over Titans, "not Engaging the Enemy" Funny that's what shooting is, If I have a vehicle with Range of 120 why get to within 12inches of the target?
A superheavy should be used as designed. A stormlord will advance to deliver troops, a Shadowsword will snipe and a baneblade will do what's needed as best it can.
On the points side, I'd agree with the drop in relation to Chases concerns. That said, others disagree so if we go back I think that we should allow for Angrath or a 1500 point Chaos Reaver Titan to be more valuable than a baneblade. Maybe go to 25 and 30 for <500 and >500 respectively.
-
Loaded question :) but I think I need it answered, in order to understand some of the concerns out there. But in your mind what is aggressive play?
I keep hearing arguments for "Promotion of aggressive play", and I'd like to make sure that I understand what people are looking for.
Cheers,
Alan
-
The point system is terrible for a few reasons:
1. The goal becomes who can pile the biggest baddest models around an objective
2. It creates huge imbalances based upon the force composition on each side.
3. All models are not created equal. Ork vs Terminator, Rhino vs Land Raider, Baneblade vs. Emperor titan.
Giving incentive for people to move superheavies on to objectives doesn't necessarily result in aggressive/volatile game play, it just forces people to do things they wouldn't normally do (like move a titan) and honestly there is no reason for someone to move a titan. It can shoot anything it wants from where it is, without moving. Giving them some strategical purpose other than that defeats the very nature of why titans exist.
( I wrote this at the exact same time you did Alan so I guess we are on the same page)
-
The point system is terrible for a few reasons:
1. The goal becomes who can pile the biggest baddest models around an objective
2. It creates huge imbalances based upon the force composition on each side.
3. All models are not created equal. Ork vs Terminator, Rhino vs Land Raider, Baneblade vs. Emperor titan.
Giving incentive for people to move superheavies on to objectives doesn't necessarily result in aggressive/volatile game play, it just forces people to do things they wouldn't normally do (like move a titan) and honestly there is no reason for someone to move a titan. It can shoot anything it wants from where it is, without moving. Giving them some strategical purpose other than that defeats the very nature of why titans exist.
Not sure if I agree with the first point, but I definitely agree with the rest of the post.
How's this for an easy scoring method:
Take the points value of the unit, divide by 100 and round to the nearest whole number ( 2.5 rounds to 3, 2.4 rounds to 2) every unit is worth at least 1 point. That is the scoring value of that unit.
Now to claim an objective: have more points than the opposing force. There's no contesting. Units falling back/pinned and vehicles that are immobilized don't score. You can't score if embarked within a vehicle.
So, guard squads tend to be one point, space marine squads (the 10 man squads at least) tend to be 2 points, Terminators range from 3-4, etc.
If a Space Marines combat squad, Then each squad is worth half (round down). (260 point squad is worth 3 points, if they combat squad then each is worth 1). This is somewhat of a disadvantage for the Space marine player, but it'll happen rarely enough (only when the whole squad is worth an odd number of points) I don't think too many people will complain about it.
Removing the ability to contest also gives people less of a reason to use their forces in ways that they wouldn't normally do otherwise (like running rhinos up the field alone to try contesting an objective from a titan).
So a superheavy will tend to be worth between 5 and 15 points. That's fine. They're big and scary. And closer to enemy meltaguns if they move forward.
<Editted to address space marines that combat squad>
-
How's this for an easy scoring method:
Take the points value of the unit, divide by 100 and round to the nearest whole number ( 2.5 rounds to 3, 2.4 rounds to 2) every unit is worth at least 1 point. That is the scoring value of that unit.
Now to claim an objective: have more points than the opposing force. There's no contesting. Units falling back/pinned and vehicles that are immobilized don't score. You can't score if embarked within a vehicle.
So, guard squads tend to be one point, space marine squads (the 10 man squads at least) tend to be 2 points, Terminators range from 3-4, etc.
Removing the ability to contest also gives people less of a reason to use their forces in ways that they wouldn't normally do otherwise (like running rhinos up the field alone to try contesting an objective from a titan).
So a superheavy will tend to be worth between 5 and 15 points. That's fine. They're big and scary. And closer to enemy meltaguns if they move forward.
I approve of this message.
I think this is the best scoring method so far.
-
Im confused. I thought we were trying to uncomplicate scoring? Take point cost/100? 1/10/30 is PERFECT for simple scoring.
And in 4th edition a terminator WAS worth the same for objectives that a guardsman was, showing that Ensign Ricky and Terminator Larry might have different saves/point cost, but they still had the same "value" on the battlefield
-
Im confused. I thought we were trying to uncomplicate scoring? Take point cost/100? 1/10/30 is PERFECT for simple scoring.
And in 4th edition a terminator WAS worth the same for objectives that a guardsman was, showing that Ensign Ricky and Terminator Larry might have different saves/point cost, but they still had the same "value" on the battlefield
Calculating 1/10/30 will actually be more time consuming in practice since each turn you'll have to individually count every guardsmen attempting to claim the objective. With this way of scoring, you'll just write down in your army list how many points each unit worth. Most units we'll know right off the bat anyways.
Really, it's not that difficult.
And 4th edition scoring has lead to more tie games than I'd ever seen before. Not a very good scoring system if you ask me.
-
Soooooooooo. what happens when to unit starts getting whittled down?
Do we then calculate how much the unit it worth at the time of scoring and then divide by 100, then compare the result to any enemy units attempting to contest?
Or is a unit just worth the points it generates at full strength, no matter how many losses it has suffered?
For instance a 10 man terminator squard valued at 300 pt, starts the game generating 3 pts to hold an objective. If they suffer 5 deaths, is the unit now worth 2 pts, or still worth the three from the begining of the game??
-
Will it still count as scoring if below half strength? Just asking so as to not make waste of "Hold it at all costs"?
PS: Or perhaps hold at all costs will be reworded to have the squad worth full points no matter the casualties?
-
Soooooooooo. what happens when to unit starts getting whittled down?
Do we then calculate how much the unit it worth at the time of scoring and then divide by 100, then compare the result to any enemy units attempting to contest?
Or is a unit just worth the points it generates at full strength, no matter how many losses it has suffered?
For instance a 10 man terminator squard valued at 300 pt, starts the game generating 3 pts to hold an objective. If they suffer 5 deaths, is the unit now worth 2 pts, or still worth the three from the begining of the game??
I think for ease of calculation, just count them as worth full points as long as there's one member alive (falling back, pinned, etc notwithstanding). True it takes away a bit from the realism (haha) but it ends up being less confusing to figure out.
What do you think Chase?
-
I just got home from playing D&D... seeing this now, at 3:42am (tough life, I know). I'll give it a better read when I get to the store tomorrow and post my thoughts / concerns.
-
The rules we proposed encourage very aggressive game play. I do not understand the problem.
If someone makes the good play of dumping a Stormlord filled with guardsmen on an objective, they'll eat a lot of strength D. Remember, they have to hold it a full turn to score.
Order attracts more players that like stand and shoot, as better stand and shoot units are available. Chaos attracts those who prefer close combat. It is currently in vogue to say 'aggressive' gaming is inherently superior. If one embraces such values, it follows that scenarios and victory conditions should be loaded to favor close combat armies.
This can be taken too far. The BG approach of keeping score throughout the game rather than just at game end is I believe unique. It does encourage what might be called 'aggressive' play, or it might be described as encouraging 'pig pile' tactics. The game is reduced to how quickly one can throw equipment and lives into assorted bottomless pits. If one is into Blood for the Blood God religion or Orc Waarg philosophy, this might seem cool. Not everyone likes to play that mindlessly.
I am not going to engage in the question of how to count the worth of the lives and equipment in the pit on any given turn. I'll let y'all go at it. I figure I'm so much in the minority here that my voice isn't going to be heard.
I'm also not too concerned with Chaos dropping unkillable gargantuans on top of objectives. I don't think Chaos has enough unkillable gargantuans at this point. To date, Order has had a superiority in very high end models. Chaos has a lot of middle of the road gargantuans, but Order has a reasonable chance of holding its own at the middle level.
I have one mild concern. There aren't all that many 1000 point plus models floating around. If most or all of Order's really big models end up on one table, while all of Chaos's end up on another table, we might see less battle between equal giants and more desperate attempts to do the impossible. It might be good for both sides to try to balance out the really big models somewhat, to avoid a strategy of putting an excessive amount of the really powerful stuff on one table.
-
I have one mild concern. There aren't all that many 1000 point plus models floating around. If most or all of Order's really big models end up on one table, while all of Chaos's end up on another table, we might see less battle between equal giants and more desperate attempts to do the impossible. It might be good for both sides to try to balance out the really big models somewhat, to avoid a strategy of putting an excessive amount of the really powerful stuff on one table.
I actually think this is more a strategy issue than anything else. Teams should work together to prevent this from happening.
As for the whole offensive/defensive bit, I personally felt there were plenty of instances where one or the other side acted as the "defender". And they scored points each turn for successfully defending their position.
-
As for the whole offensive/defensive bit, I personally felt there were plenty of instances where one or the other side acted as the "defender". And the scored points each turn for successfully defending their position.
I'd expect this to happen again, especially on the big table.
-
Hitting an army with a battle cannon is pretty aggressive, I'd say.
Also, single scariest infantry unit is a th/ss terminator. An order only unit.
Just sayin'.
-
How's this for an easy scoring method:
Take the points value of the unit, divide by 100 and round to the nearest whole number ( 2.5 rounds to 3, 2.4 rounds to 2) every unit is worth at least 1 point. That is the scoring value of that unit.
Now to claim an objective: have more points than the opposing force. There's no contesting. Units falling back/pinned and vehicles that are immobilized don't score. You can't score if embarked within a vehicle.
So, guard squads tend to be one point, space marine squads (the 10 man squads at least) tend to be 2 points, Terminators range from 3-4, etc.
If a Space Marines combat squad, Then each squad is worth half (round down). (260 point squad is worth 3 points, if they combat squad then each is worth 1). This is somewhat of a disadvantage for the Space marine player, but it'll happen rarely enough (only when the whole squad is worth an odd number of points) I don't think too many people will complain about it.
Removing the ability to contest also gives people less of a reason to use their forces in ways that they wouldn't normally do otherwise (like running rhinos up the field alone to try contesting an objective from a titan).
So a superheavy will tend to be worth between 5 and 15 points. That's fine. They're big and scary. And closer to enemy meltaguns if they move forward.
This is poorly written, I appologize.
Thanks for offering this up Mike. I appreciate it (and sort of require it).
If I am understanding this correctly, the breakdown basically boils down to:
Infantry type things: 1-4 points depending on how expensive the squad was at the start of the game.
Vehicle type things: 1-3ish points depending on how expensive the model is.
Super Heavy type things: 5-15 points depending on how expensive the model is.
Units falling back or pinned don’t score/
Immobile vehicles don’t score.
A transports embarked cargo doesn’t score.
No contesting.
Well… my initial opinion is that it doesn’t really address my primary concern, which is a super heavies ability to dominate an objective. It is certainly very “fair†in terms of the value of each unit or model, that much is for sure.
Here’s a concern… and it might be the root of the problems that I have with super heavies and their scoring:
They count for a LOT in terms of scoring… either due to their price (outlined here) or by their weight (using some sort of weighted rule set) and they die a lot less than everything else.
Many (most) guns and other weapons can not hurt the super heavies (right?). It seems to be a lot easier to kill, pin, immobilize, whatever anything else than it is to kill a super heavy. If 5 squads of Guardsmen or 2 squads of Space Marines are camping an objective opposed by a Baneblade… the average army might have an easier time removing the tank, but what if that tank is a big Demon, a Titan of any kind, or anything else with a handful of structure points? I don’t think the average army is equipped to handle something like that… and would much rather try and remove the Guard or SM’s. Although allowing any remaining model in a squad to count for the full value of the squad certainly helps this issue…. But in my opinion doesn’t solve it. Many more guns and other weapons are capable of killing guard, SM’s, whatever…. 1 shot from a Baneblade wipes almost the entire objective clean of anything that isn’t big, has multiple wounds, or an invulnerable save, right?
Another issue I have is that the only way to “match†the really big stuff in terms of scoring is with 3-10 SQUADS of infantry / vehicles. I worry about this. It seems incredibly unrealistic to think a team will have any more than 3 squads of anything within a scoring area. Footprint matters, a lot. You’ve basically got 1 square foot to score in… A Baneblade and especially a Titan (due to being a walker) are incredibly efficient in terms of scoring because they don’t take up much room when compared to their point equivalent in troops / anything else.
I think for all of these reasons super heavies are just too good at scoring. Is there a way to address this, or must we just let it stand?
What if we divide the super heavies by 200? Is this too extreme? I’d like to think a 10 man squad of Marines (260 points?) should count for about the same as a Bane blade (500 points?) in terms of scoring… and a 10 man Terminator squad (400 points?) is roughly equiv to a Warhound (750 points?) in terms of scoring. If anything this tends to weight troops in a manner which is a bit heavier than other things, and that’s great in my opinion. This gets really ugly when you allow 1 Guardsmen, 1 SM, or 1 Terminator to count as the entire squad though.
Sigh… I don’t know. This appears to be a lot more difficult than I figured. Let’s figure out a way to make super heavies count for less in terms of scoring. They should not dominate that aspect of the game.
-
Well… my initial opinion is that it doesn’t really address my primary concern, which is a super heavies ability to dominate an objective. It is certainly very “fair†in terms of the value of each unit or model, that much is for sure.
Here’s a concern… and it might be the root of the problems that I have with super heavies and their scoring:
They count for a LOT in terms of scoring… either due to their price (outlined here) or by their weight (using some sort of weighted rule set) and they die a lot less than everything else.
Many (most) guns and other weapons can not hurt the super heavies (right?). It seems to be a lot easier to kill, pin, immobilize, whatever anything else than it is to kill a super heavy. If 5 squads of Guardsmen or 2 squads of Space Marines are camping an objective opposed by a Baneblade… the average army might have an easier time removing the tank, but what if that tank is a big Demon, a Titan of any kind, or anything else with a handful of structure points? I don’t think the average army is equipped to handle something like that… and would much rather try and remove the Guard or SM’s. Although allowing any remaining model in a squad to count for the full value of the squad certainly helps this issue…. But in my opinion doesn’t solve it. Many more guns and other weapons are capable of killing guard, SM’s, whatever…. 1 shot from a Baneblade wipes almost the entire objective clean of anything that isn’t big, has multiple wounds, or an invulnerable save, right?
Another issue I have is that the only way to “match†the really big stuff in terms of scoring is with 3-10 SQUADS of infantry / vehicles. I worry about this. It seems incredibly unrealistic to think a team will have any more than 3 squads of anything within a scoring area. Footprint matters, a lot. You’ve basically got 1 square foot to score in… A Baneblade and especially a Titan (due to being a walker) are incredibly efficient in terms of scoring because they don’t take up much room when compared to their point equivalent in troops / anything else.
I think for all of these reasons super heavies are just too good at scoring. Is there a way to address this, or must we just let it stand?
It's true that superheavies are worth a lot (and consequently, are very hard to claim objectives from). On the other hand, I've seen A LOT of superheavies drop from one round of shooting/assault
While you're correct in that there are many guns that don't have a chance at damaging a superheavy, it's not at all difficult to load up on the ones that can.
I haven't owned a superheavy until about 6 months ago, but my marines have destroyed more baneblades, plaguetowers, and brass scorpions than I can remember. Those were all significant parts of my opponent's army that died in one round of shooting and/or assault.
-
here's a plan: same scoring as normal 40k, but instead of troops choices, make it infantry (of any kind). because lets be honest, infantry are what secure locations. superheavies and tanks would be horrible at holding a location. armies without them would not be able to function. infantry have downsides, but they can always be overcome (via transports, alternate deployment methods, etc) in order to keep up with the rest of the army in both mobility and firepower.
chase's scoring of 1/7/20 is my other vote for an alternate scoring method.
-
here's a plan: same scoring as normal 40k, but instead of troops choices, make it infantry (of any kind). because lets be honest, infantry are what secure locations. superheavies and tanks would be horrible at holding a location. armies without them would not be able to function. infantry have downsides, but they can always be overcome (via transports, alternate deployment methods, etc) in order to keep up with the rest of the army in both mobility and firepower.
chase's scoring of 1/7/20 is my other vote for an alternate scoring method.
Agreed this makes the most sense out of anything. Of course anything else can contest is my other add on...
-
yeah, i forgot to mention that. anything should be able to contest
-
The only real concern I have with that is the likelihood that objectives will not be scored at all due to constant contesting. A very difficult to kill super heavy or gargantuan creature under this method can now not score for himself, but can essentially lock an objective down and prevent the other team from scoring. For what I’d imagine is a considerable amount of time. Is this any better than allowing them to score? In my opinion it creates a very low scoring game. Is this okay?
I would like objectives to be scored more often than in previous years and would like to come up with some sort of system that reflects that and doesn’t also strongly favor taking super heavy units for purposes of scoring / contesting.
I am very, very firmly of the belief that super heavy units should not be (by far) the strongest scoring / contesting pieces regardless of there point cost to a player. The fact that they are incredibly resilient along with their footprint issues (both being too small and too large with respect to the 6“ radius scoring zones) create for a piece that is simply too good at something it was never intended to do upon design.
Really, I like the normal scoring rules a lot. I love the fact that only troops (infantry) can score. Again, however, we face the issue of super heavies simply shutting things down one way or another (in this case, contesting) and being too good at it due to being so difficult to remove.
Is there a way to deal with this that is both good and fair? Can we have things cancel each other out somehow? I guess that sort of boils down to assigning points to each type of model that can not score and can only contest.
The reason this is so important and requires so much discussion is because failing to come up with a good, fair scoring system effectively ruins the event assuming each team is trying to win. Presenting a system that is easily manipulated isn’t great, especially when easily manipulating it involves taking more “big thingsâ€. If the scoring system is to be manipulated, I’d MUCH rather see it manipulated by infantry for what I think are obvious reasons.
I think it’s much, much easier to address any abusive scoring tactics that involve infantry than it is super heavies… For instance, only models that are actually within (the model itself is >50% inside) the scoring area count as scoring. So it wouldn’t matter if you’ve got a squad of 100+ zombies, guardsmen, whatever, only the 10ish models that are actually within the 6†radius would count as scoring. (I realize this is not in line with the way GW typically scores things and I‘m 100% okay with that)
So… how can we revise the contesting rules? Is a revision required or should we just stick to “troops (infantry) score, everything else contests� Will this lead to a very low scoring game? I want a high scoring, back and forth type, aggressive, volatile game.
-
Current rules would allow for lots of contesting and little to no actual scoring.
Also, a clearer definition of infantry would be good too. Dreadnoughts move as infantry, are they infantry? Assault Squads can have jump packs and move as jump infantry are they infantry? Plague of zombies datasheet- are they considered infantry for scoring purposes? Daemon Princes can move as infantry or as jump infantry (wargear dependent) but are monstrous creatures are they infantry?
Saying troops only score makes things a lot clearer/simpler to the players.
-
Current rules would allow for lots of contesting and little to no actual scoring.
Also, a clearer definition of infantry would be good too. Dreadnoughts move as infantry, are they infantry? Assault Squads can have jump packs and move as jump infantry are they infantry? Plague of zombies datasheet- are they considered infantry for scoring purposes? Daemon Princes can move as infantry or as jump infantry (wargear dependent) but are monstrous creatures are they infantry?
Saying troops only score makes things a lot clearer/simpler to the players.
Only troops score would be simpler, but I think a lot of people don't like it.
Toughness based models might be split into infantry, monstrous, jump infantry, jetpacks, bikes, jetbikes, beasts, cavalry, artillery, swarms and gargantuan.
Armor based models might be split into walkers, flyers and bland stuff.
I'll strongly suggest flyers not in hover mode can't score or contest. Other than that, folks might want to plop the various above types into the score, contest and neither buckets.
I'm not sure I'd want to explain to the carnifex why he can't score.
-
Current rules would allow for lots of contesting and little to no actual scoring.
Also, a clearer definition of infantry would be good too. Dreadnoughts move as infantry, are they infantry? Assault Squads can have jump packs and move as jump infantry are they infantry? Plague of zombies datasheet- are they considered infantry for scoring purposes? Daemon Princes can move as infantry or as jump infantry (wargear dependent) but are monstrous creatures are they infantry?
Saying troops only score makes things a lot clearer/simpler to the players.
I've never been a fan of only counting troop choices as scoring units.
-
Current rules would allow for lots of contesting and little to no actual scoring.
Yeah, that's what I was worried about. Is there an easy way to solve this?
Also, a clearer definition of infantry would be good too. Dreadnoughts move as infantry, are they infantry? Assault Squads can have jump packs and move as jump infantry are they infantry? Plague of zombies datasheet- are they considered infantry for scoring purposes? Daemon Princes can move as infantry or as jump infantry (wargear dependent) but are monstrous creatures are they infantry?
Saying troops only score makes things a lot clearer/simpler to the players.
I have been considering what to do with this... Part of me wants all "infantry" to score. In this case, any model with a Unit Type referred to as "infantry" of any kind would count as scoring.
An easier way is to just call “troop choices†scoring units.
Personally, I like the Unit Type: Infantry (Jump Infantry, whatever) method because I like the idea of special characters and stuff like them claiming objectives. It may end up being an unnecessary complication though.
I’m much more interested in getting a method of scoring down that I think everyone at the table can feel good about and not manipulate very easily.
-
I'll strongly suggest flyers not in hover mode can't score or contest.
One thing I can promise is that flyers that are flying will not score or contest.
-
I have been considering what to do with this... Part of me wants all "infantry" to score. In this case, any model with a Unit Type referred to as "infantry" of any kind would count as scoring.
An easier way is to just call “troop choices†scoring units.
Personally, I like the Unit Type: Infantry (Jump Infantry, whatever) method because I like the idea of special characters and stuff like them claiming objectives. It may end up being an unnecessary complication though.
I’m much more interested in getting a method of scoring down that I think everyone at the table can feel good about and not manipulate very easily.
Just "infantry" would leave out all beasts, jet bikes, bikes, monstrous creatures (including Daemon Princes, Normal Summoned Greater Daemons from codex CSM, carnifexes, etc).
The 1/7/20 method while I don't necessarily agree with it works better than trying to define what is acceptable infantry.
Also, I would move away from the only x number from this squad is within 6" of the objective so the other y number of the same squad do not count. That is pretty far from normal 40k ruling.
-
Just "infantry" would leave out all beasts, jet bikes, bikes, monstrous creatures (including Daemon Princes, Normal Summoned Greater Daemons from codex CSM, carnifexes, etc).
Other than beasts, because I don’t know what you’re referring to, I am okay with this. People don’t like the fact that bikes and jet bikes cant score.. If we go this route I’m sure I’ll hear lots about that, but the thing is, they aren’t infantry and the game doesn’t recognize them as such. Things like Dreadnoughts, Daemon Princes, Greater Demons, and Carnifexes definitely aren’t infantry and the game doesn’t recognize them as such.
The 1/7/20 method while I don't necessarily agree with it works better than trying to define what is acceptable infantry.
I’m interested in why you don’t agree with 1/7/20. It’s important for me to hear.
I also don’t understand the difficulty in determining what is considered “infantryâ€. I’m told the game does it for you. It looks like the entries in the back of each Codex tell you what is considered what. The Dark Eldar book doesn’t but the Eldar book is there to sort that out. I’d imagine the Necron book doesn’t either due to being so old. The 40k Rulebook has an entry for what it considers each Unit Type but I didn’t read through it.
Also, I would move away from the only x number from this squad is within 6" of the objective so the other y number of the same squad do not count. That is pretty far from normal 40k ruling.
In my opinion allowing anything that’s touching the 6†radius to score “completely†can only increase manipulation of any scoring system we use.
I want the objectives to be claimed due to good moves and hard fought battles, not who can slap the biggest, baddest, largest model or squad on it. Fight tooth and nail over them… you know?
If people are encouraged to take any given thing because it’s “very good†at claiming objectives then there is something wrong with the way the scoring is handled. Right?
-
Other than beasts, because I don’t know what you’re referring to, I am okay with this. People don’t like the fact that bikes and jet bikes cant score.. If we go this route I’m sure I’ll hear lots about that, but the thing is, they aren’t infantry and the game doesn’t recognize them as such. Things like Dreadnoughts, Daemon Princes, Greater Demons, and Carnifexes definitely aren’t infantry and the game doesn’t recognize them as such.
Ah, I was looking in the main rule book but I see what you mean. If that is the case, why not just use things with a wound that are not gargantuan? This way bikes, beasts and monstrous creatures can be included. Just no armor values for scoring purposes. I'm not too fond of it since it leaves out things like dreadnoughts and other vehicles capable of scoring but it simplifies it.
I’m interested in why you don’t agree with 1/7/20. It’s important for me to hear.
I think there is too much fear surrounding superheavies. The points balance out and as far as scoring purposes since they are a huge point sink. They are already brought into line, why do it further? Also, a dreadnought (walker vehicle) can kick around infantry all day long, why should it not be the value of 10 men?
In my opinion allowing anything that’s touching the 6†radius to score “completely†can only increase manipulation of any scoring system we use.
It can give models with a larger base a smaller amount near the objective.
I want the objectives to be claimed due to good moves and hard fought battles, not who can slap the biggest, baddest, largest model or squad on it. Fight tooth and nail over them… you know?
If people are encouraged to take any given thing because it’s “very good†at claiming objectives then there is something wrong with the way the scoring is handled. Right?
236 horrors, not even d weapons will get them off objectives. They can deepstrike and have a ranged ability. So they are the perfect camping unit on objectives. I'm sure someone better at math hammer can find and even better unit to abuse. Heh, the new tervigon. It makes infantry on the go.
The original scoring system in apoc where everything is scoring and it's 1/10/30 works well for this example as well since it only takes 30 single models to contest something exponentially more in point cost. If it does not cost exponentially more, it will die to a round of shooting since the lesser super heavies only have 2-3 structure points.
-
Also, I would move away from the only x number from this squad is within 6" of the objective so the other y number of the same squad do not count. That is pretty far from normal 40k ruling.
In my opinion allowing anything that’s touching the 6†radius to score “completely†can only increase manipulation of any scoring system we use.
I want the objectives to be claimed due to good moves and hard fought battles, not who can slap the biggest, baddest, largest model or squad on it. Fight tooth and nail over them… you know?
If people are encouraged to take any given thing because it’s “very good†at claiming objectives then there is something wrong with the way the scoring is handled. Right?
The problem with "only models" within x inches of an objective is that 40k was never meant to be balanced around model count (which is why small, elite armies like space wolves and grey knights exist along side more traditional horde armies like guard and orks). Lots of armies (and therefore, players) will be at an inherent disadvantage.
For example, at 2k points, I might have 55-60 models (including vehicles) for my space marine army. That's about 1 full troop choice (the infantry platoon) of an imperial guard army. A very large proportion of the guns in Apocalypse that are great at killing guardsmen work just as well against marines.
Also, while there's talk about how difficult it is to kill gargantuan creatures and such. The fact is, while Disorder may have access to more (all) of the gargantuan creatures, The datasheets that Order has access to gives them a huge advantage when it comes to stratagems (the datasheets that disorder gets, while still good, don't really compare on the power level).
Every space marine player could have flank march if they wanted to. Every space marine player could have a vortex grenade if they wanted to. Take 4 commanders and a command squad and you can get 3 extra stratagems. These are all very powerful things that the imperial players have access to that Disorder won't.
-
I'm sort of at a loss. I am not 100% happy with any system that has been presented or really even mentioned.
Here's what I know:
I want a system that does not inherently benefit / encourage taking any specific type of model, unit, squad, whatever for purposes of scoring whether it be obvious to most or not. If this must happen, I would strongly prefer the benefit to be given to something that game defines as "infantry". I am much more okay with a 250 model squad of “infantry†camping an objective than I am a Reaver Titan, Hierophant, or worse.
I want super heavies and gargantuan creatures to be valued much less in terms of scoring than their point cost to a player might otherwise indicate. I feel that it is a much, much better idea to "fear" super heavies and gargantuan creatures too much with respect to scoring than not enough. In terms of scoring, dumbing down their power is a priority.
(If super heavies and gargantuan creatures are used like they have been in the past, I am okay with this. I am not okay with players using them to score / contest objectives and having them end up being too good at it. In my opinion, this would severely damage the fun factor of the event.)
I want objectives to be scored often. Contesting is cool, and should be a valid strategy, but it shouldn't be trivial. I feel like any contesting rules might make it too easy due to scoring at the top of each player turn.
If these three issues can be ironed out, addressed, anything then I think all the other problems can be easily dealt with.
-
I'm sort of at a loss. I am not 100% happy with any system that has been presented or really even mentioned.
Here's what I know:
I want a system that does not inherently benefit / encourage taking any specific type of model, unit, squad, whatever for purposes of scoring whether it be obvious to most or not. If this must happen, I would strongly prefer the benefit to be given to something that game defines as "infantry". I am much more okay with a 250 model squad of “infantry†camping an objective than I am a Reaver Titan, Hierophant, or worse.
I want super heavies and gargantuan creatures to be valued much less in terms of scoring than their point cost to a player might otherwise indicate. I feel that it is a much, much better idea to "fear" super heavies and gargantuan creatures too much with respect to scoring than not enough. In terms of scoring, dumbing down their power is a priority.
(If super heavies and gargantuan creatures are used like they have been in the past, I am okay with this. I am not okay with players using them to score / contest objectives and having them end up being too good at it. In my opinion, this would severely damage the fun factor of the event.)
I want objectives to be scored often. Contesting is cool, and should be a valid strategy, but it shouldn't be trivial. I feel like any contesting rules might make it too easy due to scoring at the top of each player turn.
If these three issues can be ironed out, addressed, anything then I think all the other problems can be easily dealt with.
Alright, if you’re adamant about super heavies and gargantuan creatures from scoring, here’s what I propose:
Use the system I mentioned earlier. Super heavies and gargantuan creatures count as 5 points, no matter their cost.
Score at the bottom of each player turn, rather than the beginning. This will make contesting much harder.
-
How would contesting work, Mike? All or nothing?
Also, how big a deal is "land grab" if we score at the bottom of a round? Is it an issue or not?
I love the idea of scoring at the top of the round, but I guess it would require awesome contesting rules (if any).
-
How would contesting work, Mike? All or nothing?
Also, how big a deal is "land grab" if we score at the bottom of a round? Is it an issue or not?
I love the idea of scoring at the top of the round, but I guess it would require awesome contesting rules (if any).
I don't believe in contesting. All or Nothing!
Either way we do it, people will still land grab. Either it's land grab to get more points, or land grab to deny your opponent points.
-
I would very much like to see troops in transports count as scoring, just like in normal 40k.