So, HOW should all of "this" happen. What is a seamless way to handle the inter-table effects?
Perhaps each table should have a box on it, in which notes can be placed specifying interactions. Rather than a box, one might give it to your own team's table captain.
At the end of a player turn on one table, if the team whose turn ended has sole control of some set of objectives, they get to put a note in another tables's box. This note might quote a well defined game mechanic such as as Orbital Bombardment. If the cross table effect isn't a well known game mechanic, it would be up to Derek and Chase to have clearly defined it before hand.
At the start of every shooting phase, the side whose turn it is gets to look through the box for notes that justify extra explosions.
The above idea in its simplest form does not try to keep game time in synch. One might also specify on the note what turn the action ought to occur on. Thus, a note might say "From Moon table to Main table, Orbital Bombardment, arrives shooting phase turn 3.
This would become problematic if a slow table tries to bombard a fast table, or possibly vica versa. If a fast table bombards a slow table on turn six, and the slow table never gets to turn six, the bombardment might just never be played. If a slow table bombards a fast table, a note saying bombard on turn 4 might not be read until turn 5. If this is the case, perhaps the projectile was just slow, and would land a little late.
It might be simpler not to specify the turn on arrival, but just execute the bombardment on the next appropriate shooting phase.
The above example is fixed purely on bombardment. There could be other forms of interaction that might best be kept to a minimum. I'd suggest that the claiming of objectives always take place at the end of a player's turn. Write a note. Put it in the other table's in box. The execution would take place on an appropriate phase.
If a unit is moved to another table, it would appear on the next movement phase for the correct side on the other table. If the interaction is related to shooting, it would take place in the next shooting phase for the correct side on the other table. If there is an enemy unit within assault range of a portal, we might or might not allow a unit to enter a table on the assault phase.
But I don't really like players controlling units on two tables. I'd suggest using the Dakka Dakka rule, that if a unit moves to another table, the sending player gives up all control over the unit. A player on the new table becomes responsible for playing the unit.
If we move units between tables this year, I suggest that we allow a very limited number of gates. Let's do it on a trial basis. For example, there might be a few places where one might move between the sewer and city tables, but no warp portals that allow transfer from any portal to any other portal.
I'd also suggest that if we have gates between tables, they might come in different sizes. Some might allow infantry, cavalry, bikes and beasts only, some might allow tanks and transports as well, while few if any gates are big enough for superheavies or gargantuan creatures.
This is just an attempt to make things as simple and idiot resistant as possible. I could do without moving units between tables at all. I could go with bombardment only interactions.
