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

[ghost03]

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)

 

[Logan007]

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>

[ghost03]

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.

[Moosifer]

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

[Logan007]

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.

[jesterofthedark]

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??

[YuCeh]

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?

[Logan007]

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?

[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.

[blantyr]

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.

[Logan007]

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.

[Chase]

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.

[the_trooper]

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'.

[Chase]

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.

[Logan007]

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.