Apocalypse Megabattle 2011 Table Interactions

[Chase]

The megabattle can be confusing and time consuming enough, no need to add in scattering for all vehicles. I do think that is really cool, though. Especially the shooting rule.

I'd stick to table-wide static effects that do not generate die rolls or once per turn global effects.

This.

[Rob S]

Another possibility for the ice table is that vehicles who go flat out will move an extra d6 inches in a random direction ( use the warmahordes template for this).  This extra movement can result in a tank shock or ramming attack as per normal rules

If only we had some kind of 6 sided device we used to give a random direction, maybe to show something that scatters.

I do like the idea though, moving flat out and then moving in a random direction.  I also think that the vehicle should then face the direction in was moved in, or at least have some sort of facing changed.  A simple rule, but one that really makes the environment match the gameplay.

Sims, the only reason I suggested the warmahordes template is that there is little in the way of confusion about the angle of where the scatter goes.  It has the direction it was going, and 5 other directions.

Fair enough.  If someone rolls argues about the angle of a die rolled close to the model and with a max of 6 inches, though, I believe they should be booted out the door.

[Dissimulation]

Cool idea. On the ice table you could have a few glaciers that are free floating. The glaciers could scatter 1d6 or 1d3 or something every turn.

Whether interfering models die or just move out of the way is up in the air, but I think that a dynamic landscape would be totally awesome.

[Librarian]

I think scattering ice would be a bit of a nightmare to actualy deal with. either you have only a few and it barely effect the game or there are alot of them and it takes up a ton of time. I think more global effects perhaps ones triggered  or preset.

Perhaps on the ice table the battle starts during a blizzard and everyone uses a weaker version of the night fight rules and each turn a single die is rolled by one of the team captains and on say 3+ the storm ends.

Or mabye a super heavy going critical on the main table causes the sewer table to treat open terrain as difficult for the next turn.

another main table sewer idea add a water treatment plant to the main table that if controlled by one side grants the captain of that side on the sewer table a single stratigic asset or something similar.

there was some talk of a waygate portal whail I am against moveing models from one table to another it would be fine if there where two gates mabye one in the city and one in the wasteland the side that controls the city one grants there side on the wasteland table one use of the replacements asset that is automaticly successful but is limited to a single unit that could fit through the gate and must come through the gate.

it really depends on how many interactions we want between tables. we could set it up so that 4 of the 6 objectives on the main table cause effects on each of the other tables and each outer table has one objective that effects the main table and one that effects one other table and each table could have one effect that is local to that table such as the night fighting storm though that might be too many effects at once.

[Chase]

Josh, I want you to talk to Derek about all of that.  Come up with tons of similar ideas, try to get them on "paper" (post them here or email them to me).  ChaseLaq@gmail.com

I like some of those ideas a lot.  I want more. 

I am about as creative as... I dunno, something that's not creative.

[Chase]

Your post just really excited me.  I really like those ideas!!

[Librarian]

If at the start of there second or third turn one side or the other controls a command center  on the main table (one of the objectives in no mans land in theory) they can remotely access the orbital weaponry on the moon useing it to bombard the area (apocalyptic barrage) the power of the attack dependent on how many of the moons towers are still standing at that moment. After the third turn ends the rotation of the planet relitive to the moon carries it out of sync removeing the possiblity of further barrages.

during the 4th wasteland turn the moon is in sync with the area allowing a similar barrage.

this could encourage player based table interactions perhaps the city general asking the moon commander on his side to try and take down some of the towers before the opposeing side fires...but what about the poor wasteland where they control that station they may want as many towers active as possible for there own shot at the blast.

[blantyr]

Librarian's idea for moon to planet interaction is plausible.  I've been mulling a similar idea for planet to planet interaction, the Inter Table Ballistic Missile (ITBM).  There are some strategic assets that might plausibly be mounted on a warhead.  These might include vortex grenade, anti plant barrage, blind barrage, and orbital bombardment.  As either a feature of a table or a strategic asset, there might be silos on certain tables that can launch strategic assets, assuming the silos haven't been captured or destroyed first.  I might suggest that two or three ITBMs might be bought as a single strategic asset, but all of them might not be launched as the other side will be trying to destroy the launchers.

ITBMs might not be able to target their own launch table, and might not have the range to reach the moon.

There was a discussion on whether there should only be one set of strategic assets per side as per book, rather than one set of assets per side per table.  This could be the difference between 2 flank marches and 10.  The argument against was that there are more players on a side than there are assets.  One wants everyone to have a shot at a decent asset.  There are 24 non-banned assets in the base rules, with several more per army in Reload.  The Reload assets are quite sexy, and should not be overlooked.  Also, most of the assets in the base book are not controversial.  Most of them might be allowed twice.

Creating a few additional inter table assets might be interesting.  Instead of putting an inter table asset objective in no man's land and fighting over it, if a player selects an inter table asset it would be placed in his own deployment zone, and might be easier to defend.  

Last year, when it became clear that the opposition was going to take the lunar launch control building, we blew away the launch control building.  I suspect this will happen a lot if inter table stuff is located in no-man's land.  Having players buy an inter table asset so they might place it somewhere defendable might be worth considering.

I might suggest that a tunnel between the sewer and city tables might be a plausible inter table asset.

I also suggested that on the ice table, ice skates might be a plausible asset, but no one seemed to take me seriously.  

[Chase]

I like the ITBM idea and taking it as an asset.

If someone would like to write them up and send them to me that would be cool.

[GossWeapon]

What about having table-specific specail assets? for example the ice table is slippery and cold, but we could give players an asset which their army is immune to the cold and/or sliding around.

[blantyr]

I like the ITBM idea and taking it as an asset.

If someone would like to write them up and send them to me that would be cool.

I'll give it a shot...