Ian, Rich, Mike, Kev, Paul, whoever... Re: Claiming Objectives

[Chase]

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?)

[Chase]

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. 

[Chase]

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.

[the_trooper]

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.

[jesterofthedark]

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.

[Ian Mulligan]

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.

[Chase]

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

[Chase]

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.

[Chase]

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.

[Ian Mulligan]

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.

[Chase]

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?

[Ian Mulligan]

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_trooper]

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.

[Achillius]

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.

[Achillius]

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