Apocalypse Megabattle 2010 Rules, Questions, etc.

[Battleground]

Last minute deployment tweaks are fine by me. Typically, Chase and I aren't completely aware of where people have chosen to deploy until their models hit the table anyway.

It is well known that last year we were constructing tables right up until the morning before the event. I really hope to avoid that this year and we are on schedule to see to it that it doesn't happen. That said, I wouldn't expect to see any "official" table layout distinctions announced until mid-February at the earliest. That would still be a month before the event in March.

[jesterofthedark]

Coool cool, its not realistic to think that either team could get something like that pinned down prior to the game.  I just wanted to make sure that it wasn't something that was in effect and I didn't know about it.

[blantyr]

Last year, I recall some rules on deployment.  Each player was given a deployment zone.  Anything placed on the table during initial deployment had to go within that zone.  This restriction did not, as I recall, apply after the game got underway.  Units with deep strike, flank march, flyer and other similar rules could show up anywhere their rules allowed.  Reserves could march in from any friendly table edge.

I can see a reason for this sort of rule.  If all a player's models are together, and the player stays near his models full time, speed of play is improved.  If everybody scattered their models all over the place, it could get very confusing. 

At the same time, having reserves free to reinforce where they are needed seems an appropriate part of the game.  Much would be lost if reserves can't be brought in where they are needed.

I'm entirely content with how this worked last year, but thought I'd mention it now.

[Chase]

Deployment will work in exactly the same way that it has in years past unless a tables "special rules" dictate otherwise.

We will not have the special rules for any table set in stone for a while.  We haven't really begun to figure through that yet.

[the_trooper]

Without getting flamed too much...
http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1181494_Chaos_Space_Marines_Datasheet_-_Khorne_Lord_of_Battles.pdf

Is this a superheavy walker or tank?

Superheavies are broken down into walkers, tanks or transports (or sometimes combinations of two).  I was thinking about building one but am unsure how it could be fielded since the categories of superheavies tends to vary.

[Achillius]

Without getting flamed too much...
http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1181494_Chaos_Space_Marines_Datasheet_-_Khorne_Lord_of_Battles.pdf

Is this a superheavy walker or tank?

Superheavies are broken down into walkers, tanks or transports (or sometimes combinations of two).  I was thinking about building one but am unsure how it could be fielded since the categories of superheavies tends to vary.

For what it's worth, I'd say a walker, I may have missed something but vehicles rarely assault. and this has a ws and initiative. Not to mention they have a rule to make it run.

That's a nice project too good luck!

Cheers,
Alan

[Chase]

I guess it seems most like a walker.

[blantyr]

(From Chase)
What has been decided is that we are going to have 3 different tables.

A moon table - 5v5 - made up of three 4x6 tables.
A planet surface table - 10v10 - made of up six 4x6 tables.
An underground cavern table - 5v5 - made up of three 4x6 tables.

Am I correct in guessing that the moon and cavern triple tables will be set up as 12x6 rather than 4x18?  If deployment zones are divided evenly among 5 players along the long edge, we'd each have 2.4 feet of deployment area?

Is the planet table intended as 24x6, 18x8, or something more creative? 

I'll raise one more issue from last year.  Last year's objectives defaulted to being destructible unless they were built firmly into the table in a way they couldn't be removed.  Last year, we lost quite a few objectives, which made the fighting in those area semi meaningless.  Units would shift to reinforce adjacent tables were fights were still relevant.

I see no reason to change, but figured folk might want to bounce ideas around a bit.  Sooner is better than later.

Also, might objectives be made more or less ginger resistant?

[Battleground]

(From Chase)
What has been decided is that we are going to have 3 different tables.

A moon table - 5v5 - made up of three 4x6 tables.
A planet surface table - 10v10 - made of up six 4x6 tables.
An underground cavern table - 5v5 - made up of three 4x6 tables.

Am I correct in guessing that the moon and cavern triple tables will be set up as 12x6 rather than 4x18?  If deployment zones are divided evenly among 5 players along the long edge, we'd each have 2.4 feet of deployment area?

Is the planet table intended as 24x6, 18x8, or something more creative? 

I'll raise one more issue from last year.  Last year's objectives defaulted to being destructible unless they were built firmly into the table in a way they couldn't be removed.  Last year, we lost quite a few objectives, which made the fighting in those area semi meaningless.  Units would shift to reinforce adjacent tables were fights were still relevant.

I see no reason to change, but figured folk might want to bounce ideas around a bit.  Sooner is better than later.

Also, might objectives be made more or less ginger resistant?

The Moon and the Cavern tables will both be arranged as 6x12 and the planet surface will be 6x24. This decision was made in order to eliminate the "dead corners" that people were forced to set up on in previous years. Those corners saw very little action for the amount of real estate they consumed.

I am now very much aware of the problems inherent in a destructible objective and currently have no plans to allow this to happen again. Every table section will remain relevant for the entirety of the event - barring any "nurglish" things that might destroy one according to the rules of apocalypse.

[the_trooper]

The Moon and the Cavern tables will both be arranged as 6x12 and the planet surface will be 6x24. This decision was made in order to eliminate the "dead corners" that people were forced to set up on in previous years. Those corners saw very little action for the amount of real estate they consumed.

I am now very much aware of the problems inherent in a destructible objective and currently have no plans to allow this to happen again. Every table section will remain relevant for the entirety of the event - barring any "nurglish" things that might destroy one according to the rules of apocalypse.

I like this post a lot.  It removes a couple of my fears from the previous year.

[Ian Mulligan]

Is assaulting a member of the opposing side going to be allowed? I just want to make sure Alan can plan appropriately.

[Chase]

Is assaulting a member of the opposing side going to be allowed?

We haven't decided if we are going to allow players to assualt yet.  We're trying to figure something out that I think most players will be okay with.

[the_trooper]

Is assaulting a member of the opposing side going to be allowed?

We haven't decided if we are going to allow players to assualt yet.  We're trying to figure something out that I think most players will be okay with.

You owe me a new phone as I tried to high five you through the internet.

[blantyr]

Is assaulting a member of the opposing side going to be allowed?

We haven't decided if we are going to allow players to assualt yet.  We're trying to figure something out that I think most players will be okay with.

Umm....  Aren't you being overly ambitious?

[Chase]

   I was just kidding around.  Have no fear.  We've talked about messing with plenty of different mechanics but outside of scoring issues everything will remain normal.