Apocalypse Megabattle 2010 Rules, Questions, etc.

[Logan007]

Please break this.  Explain why its a bad, unfair, or broken method of scoring.  This is very, very important.

I'm sure there's 30948209348203498203 other things we need to sort out too, I just cant think of them right now.  I'll post more later on.

With 3 tables, will you allow those tables to keep time independantly? It's probable that the big table will take longer turns that the 2 smaller tables.

Also, imo, sharing tech isn't going to be as big a deal as we think it it -- not when we have superheavies and everything else going on.

As a suggestion, I think if points are going to be calculated at the top of each player turn, then only that active team should score points. What we discovered (if both teams score points each player turn) was that the score gap increases very quickly and it's pretty hard for the underdog to recover.

Also, I think scoring shouldn't start until the beginning of Turn 2, otherwise the team that goes first has a pretty big advantage.

Question: you brought up the point about one table being completely dominated by a side. If, say, the imperials completely clear their board of the forces of Disorder, (and therefore their table scores max points every turn), shouldn't there be something for them to do? Otherwise they're just going to sit there.

[blantyr]

Currently the idea is to score objectives at the top of each player turn, starting round 2.  The score will continue to accumulate each round after that until the game is over or time is called on the event.  At the end of the event, the total number of points scored by each team will be divided by the number of rounds that table finished.  The three scored from each table will the be added together to give us our winner.

I would think both teams want to play the same number of player turns, and the same number of opportunities to score.  If you score at the top of the turn, whatever happens as a result of the bottom of the last turn isn't scored?  If you do score at the very end of the game, does not the team that takes the second turn get one more round of scoring than the other side?

You might want to score at end turn, not start turn.

I'm still thinking that taking score frequently forces aggressive play, demanding players push into close contact.  This encourages head on charges followed by lots of dice rolling.  OK.  I know.  That's the style a lot of folks prefer here.  BG is the wrong store for my preferred style of speed, maneuver and shooting.

But I'll suggest you might not start keeping score until Turn 3, or perhaps have one of the tables keep score only once, at the end of the last turn played.  With three tables, you need not have every single table have a scoring scheme that demands a 'damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead' strategy.

[Logan007]

I'm still thinking that taking score frequently forces aggressive play, demanding players push into close contact.  This encourages head on charges followed by lots of dice rolling.  OK.  I know.  That's the style a lot of folks prefer here.  BG is the wrong store for my preferred style of speed, maneuver and shooting.

I really don't understand why you think we're playing so aggressively. Last year, there were many objectives that started off in control of one of either Order or Disorder:

1.) The bridge started off Imperial control
2.) The factory thing that was to your right started off in Imperial control
3.) The huge Boot Hill started off more or less in Disorder's control
4.) My section of the board started off in Disorder's control.

In fact, very few of the objectives started off in no man's land.

Those objectives that started play already in control by one side would naturally encourage defensive play for the side that started off in control of them.

[Chase]

With 3 tables, will you allow those tables to keep time independantly? It's probable that the big table will take longer turns that the 2 smaller tables.

Also, imo, sharing tech isn't going to be as big a deal as we think it it -- not when we have superheavies and everything else going on.

As a suggestion, I think if points are going to be calculated at the top of each player turn, then only that active team should score points. What we discovered (if both teams score points each player turn) was that the score gap increases very quickly and it's pretty hard for the underdog to recover.

Also, I think scoring shouldn't start until the beginning of Turn 2, otherwise the team that goes first has a pretty big advantage.

Question: you brought up the point about one table being completely dominated by a side. If, say, the imperials completely clear their board of the forces of Disorder, (and therefore their table scores max points every turn), shouldn't there be something for them to do? Otherwise they're just going to sit there.

The 3 tables will play their games independently and at their own pace.  If one table gets 10 rounds in, great.  If another gets 3 rounds in, great.  We will periodically stop EVERY table when the inter-table effects happen (moon shooting at surface, etc).  Again, this will be periodic and announced spontaneously, at times the are determined before the event beings.  (Example:  Moon Lasers will fire on the surface at the 4.5 hour mark, 6 hour mark, 7 hour mark, etc)

I’m not 100% sure what you mean by the rest of the post, Mike. 

I have no real idea what opening up inter-army “tech”, teleportation, transporting, and who knows what does for the game.  It certainly seems to add an unnecessary element of complication though.  We want people to cry as little as possible and be surprised as little as possible.

Re: Scoring…  The intent was to start at the top of round two, in which case the active team will score objective points based what they control.  At the top of the other teams turn, they will score object points based on what they control.  I hope this clears everything up.

If one team is completely wiped out the team that lost will contribute NO points to their teams total at the end of the event.  The team that completely eliminated their opponent will score the MAXIMUM amount of points for their team at the end of the event.  This number will be equal to the total amount of objective points available per round on that table.  If one team tables their opponent in this event, I will be very disappointed.

If they finish earlier than everybody else, play some 40k, hang out, go to dinner, chill in your hotel room, whatever.

[Chase]

I would think both teams want to play the same number of player turns, and the same number of opportunities to score.  If you score at the top of the turn, whatever happens as a result of the bottom of the last turn isn't scored?  If you do score at the very end of the game, does not the team that takes the second turn get one more round of scoring than the other side?

You might want to score at end turn, not start turn.

I'm still thinking that taking score frequently forces aggressive play, demanding players push into close contact.  This encourages head on charges followed by lots of dice rolling.  OK.  I know.  That's the style a lot of folks prefer here.  BG is the wrong store for my preferred style of speed, maneuver and shooting.

But I'll suggest you might not start keeping score until Turn 3, or perhaps have one of the tables keep score only once, at the end of the last turn played.  With three tables, you need not have every single table have a scoring scheme that demands a 'damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead' strategy.

Both teams on each table will play the same number of player turns unless they are unable to finish due to losing all of their models.  Every round that begins will end.  Each team will have the same number of opportunities to score, however I do see what you’re saying with respect to Team B’s very last turn, after objectives have been scored, having no impact on the games scoring.

I wonder about this…  Does it matter?  Scoring opportunities remain the same, and each team has the ability to directly influence another teams ability to score the same amount as well.

Team A gets to move, shoot, and assault turn 1 without being able to directly influence Team B scoring.  After they are done, Team B DOES get to directly influence Team A’s scoring in round one due to objectives being calculated at the top of the round.

Really, what ends up happening is the Team A gets an extra turn to do “something” that has an influence on the game, but this shouldn’t directly effect scoring.

Scoring at the bottom of each player turn, starting Round 2 ends up favoring a “land grab” strategy that has been responsible for winning the game in the 2 years past.  We want to get away from this and encourage VERY aggressive play.  What I mean by that is I would like lots of killing, lots of movement where possible, and lots of incentive to fight over areas on the table.

I’d like to hear what the community thinks about the pros and cons of scoring at the top vs. bottom of the round.

Personally, I feel that scoring at the top of the round encourages a team to make a lot more choices (IE, play a better game) than simply planning to pile as many models onto a given area as possible, without the other team getting a chance to respond, and hope a bunch of them live to score again.

[Chase]

Would non-private Team specific message boards help you guys out at all?  It doesn't appear as though I can password protect any part of the forum.

[the_trooper]

Would non-private Team specific message boards help you guys out at all?  It doesn't appear as though I can password protect any part of the forum.

Can you do anything user based?  Or possibly group based?

[Logan007]

Personally, I feel that scoring at the top of the round encourages a team to make a lot more choices (IE, play a better game) than simply planning to pile as many models onto a given area as possible, without the other team getting a chance to respond, and hope a bunch of them live to score again.

What I imagine happening if scoring is done at the top of the round is that the players will still pile as many models onto a given area in order to deny the opposing team points at the top of their next turn.

Either way would probably lead to a balanced game, the difference being that score keeping at the top of the round will lead to smaller overall scores as opposed to score keeping at the end of each round.

[Chase]

I agree with what you're saying, Mike.

I would like the opposing team to get the chance to "respond" to the fact that the enemy has occupied an objective before they can score it.  In my opinion this represents ACTUALLY taking and holding an objective vs. just having more shit there than your opponent after getting to move on top of it, blast it, and hack it down.

If a team is still able to have more scoring models on an objective after "weathering the storm" for a turn, then I think it's cool to award them points.

You must be right though, I think this will make for much tighter (lower) scores.  I think I'm okay with this as it promotes a greater level of intensity and should help to keep people dialed in.


The issue that remains though is the fact that Team B's last turn doesn't really matter at all.  They effectively get one less turn of "doing stuff" than Team A does.  I feel they do get the same amount of turns to act and react in terms of claiming and protecting objectives though.

Is this a price Team B should pay for getting to set in response to their opponent at the beginning of the game, or is it reason enough to shift the scoring to the bottom of the player turns?

[Logan007]

Is this a price Team B should pay for getting to set in response to their opponent at the beginning of the game, or is it reason enough to shift the scoring to the bottom of the player turns?

I think the fact that Team B (that is, the team that has the bottom of each game turn) should definitely not lose out on a turn of scoring, especially after having weathered an alpha strike by Team A at the top of turn 1.

On the other hand, I see the merits of scoring at the top of each turn. What if, for the last game turn, we:

1.) Switch scoring to the bottom of the turn?

Or

2.) Don't count scoring for EITHER side until the end of Team B's turn?

Either way gives Team B one last heroic chance to claim victory, and makes the last game turn of the day the most exciting one.

[Achillius]

Is this a price Team B should pay for getting to set in response to their opponent at the beginning of the game, or is it reason enough to shift the scoring to the bottom of the player turns?

I think the fact that Team B (that is, the team that has the bottom of each game turn) should definitely not lose out on a turn of scoring, especially after having weathered an alpha strike by Team A at the top of turn 1.

On the other hand, I see the merits of scoring at the top of each turn. What if, for the last game turn, we:

1.) Switch scoring to the bottom of the turn?

Or

2.) Don't count scoring for EITHER side until the end of Team B's turn?

Either way gives Team B one last heroic chance to claim victory, and makes the last game turn of the day the most exciting one.

It's not easy. Last years scoring worked pretty well, the tally at the end of each turn made for an interesting motivator,. That said, I cannot help wondering, and forgive me if I over complicate this, if changing the scoring a bit would help the story. I'm not going to suggest points per se but some ideas for modification.

1. Points for claiming an uncontested objective are counted 1/2 for that turn
2. Points for claiming a contested objective should be worth more
3. Points for keeping an objective in your possession should be worth full.

To my mind this encourages players to secure objectives more thoroughly while still reaching for more. And makes those land grabs you mentioned by small elite units harder.

Cheers,
Alan

[Chase]

It's not easy. Last years scoring worked pretty well, the tally at the end of each turn made for an interesting motivator,. That said, I cannot help wondering, and forgive me if I over complicate this, if changing the scoring a bit would help the story. I'm not going to suggest points per se but some ideas for modification.

1. Points for claiming an uncontested objective are counted 1/2 for that turn
2. Points for claiming a contested objective should be worth more
3. Points for keeping an objective in your possession should be worth full.

To my mind this encourages players to secure objectives more thoroughly while still reaching for more. And makes those land grabs you mentioned by small elite units harder.

Cheers,
Alan

This is an interesting concept and I'd like to hear more ideas with respect to it.  It's certainly cooler, but I wonder if it's better and most imporantly executable in a fair, balamced way over 3 tables.

[Chase]

I think the fact that Team B (that is, the team that has the bottom of each game turn) should definitely not lose out on a turn of scoring, especially after having weathered an alpha strike by Team A at the top of turn 1.

On the other hand, I see the merits of scoring at the top of each turn. What if, for the last game turn, we:

1.) Switch scoring to the bottom of the turn?

Or

2.) Don't count scoring for EITHER side until the end of Team B's turn?

Either way gives Team B one last heroic chance to claim victory, and makes the last game turn of the day the most exciting one.

They wouldn't lose a turn of scoring, they would just lose the opperative part of their "turn".

Anyways, there is surely a solution.  We will likely do something like is suggested here.  Keep the ideas coming.

[Chase]

Would non-private Team specific message boards help you guys out at all?  It doesn't appear as though I can password protect any part of the forum.

Can you do anything user based?  Or possibly group based?

Not without a tremendous amount of micro-management.

I would have to individually change peoples “ranks” and set the forums up to only allow that rank.  If a new account is created I would have to be notified and then go in and change their rank also.

I’m only half sure this would work.  I’ll mess with it now.

[blantyr]

If at first you don't succeed, we can always do an e-mail list.

I also have a long disused forum I could make available for Order if doing it here turns awkward.