Attacker-Defender Event (first draft)

[Benjamin]

** I'm posting this for feedback from any and all. The following is not styled to be a "competitive" event. **

This is an event based on the old Attacker-Defender scenarios. Each player will bring a single list of 1000 points with which they will play both Attacker and Defender.

The tournament will consist of 3 rounds. Each round will last 125 minutes. Each round will feature two games, with each player having a role as an Attacker and a Defender. The winner of a roll-off will have their choice of role in the first game. The Attacker will deploy and have the first turn in each and every game. There will be no Seize the Initiative rule in effect for this event.

(So you'll be paired with an opponent and play two games against that person for the round.)

The first game will have a 60 minute time-limit. Players are encouraged to start the second game if they finish the first game before the time-limit. The second game will be stopped at the 125 minute mark, concluding the round.

Each *game* will be scored according to a simple design.
Win: 9 points
Draw: 4
Loss: 0
Secondary Objective: 3
Slay the Warlord: 2

Overall standings tie-breakers will be based on Strength of Schedule.

Mission 1



Primary: Purge the Alien
Secondary: Linebreaker

Mission 2



Defender places all 3 Objectives in their deployment zone, per normal rules (6" from table edge, 12" from each other).

Primary: Destroy 2 out of 3 Objectives (by having an Attacker infantry model in base contact with marker for one game turn).
Secondary: Destroy all 3 Objectives

Mission 3



Relic placed in the center of the board. The Defender may start the game with the Relic held by any model for which it would be legal.

Primary: Hold the Relic at game end.
Secondary: Relic location at game end. If the Relic is in Defender deployment zone, even if held by an Attacker model, the Secondary is awarded to the Defender. If the Relic is outside the deployment zone, the Attacker is awarded Secondary.

[Benjamin]

For terrain, I'd encourage six pieces per table.

000
000

Pretend that's the table divided in six equal sections, and there would be a piece of terrain in each section.

[MM3791]

Looks good, I'm glad you got rid of First Blood.. it's such a stupid rule 

[PhoenixFire]

Certainly looks interesting and I'd give it a try. For mission 3 you should figure a table edge for the defender for reserves and running away morale test puposes

[mchlwllms]

I like it, but I agree with the above comment. For the 3rd mission I assume the attacked could use either table edge for reserves? Or would they be limited to one?

[Benjamin]

Ah, I knew I forgot something! So in the 3rd Edition book, there's an interesting twist to that setup.

Defender units falling back actually fall toward the center of the board and automatically regroup upon reaching the center! Such is the time of desperation. It's really wild.

Also, Defender Reserves would come on from the center of the board, as if they're being dropped in, emerging from underground, etc.

[mchlwllms]

That would be really interesting, I like the thought of the reserves coming from the middle for the defenders.

[MM3791]

Also if you want to incorporate special seige rules, like a "turn 0" where both sides exchange artillery fire before the attacker closes.. and all defenders are stubborn (until the walls collapse) might be something to think about.

[MM3791]

Nevermind, it seems the new supplment has it's own official seige rules.

[Sam Butler]

if you add a 4th scenario you could run a two bracket tournament.   

[Benjamin]

Nevermind, it seems the new supplment has it's own official seige rules.

Which supplement is that? "New" doesn't really narrow it down these days.

if you add a 4th scenario you could run a two bracket tournament.

I considered something like that, but there's a rabbit-hole factor in play. Time is the most pressing issue, with the event as planned coming in at over 6 hours of play plus a lunch break. That's fine right where it is. The logical solution to making a bracket are to either make the day longer (meh) or make the armies smaller, say 500 points. So that presents a new problem. I don't think the game works at 500 points any more and I'd wager 750 isn't so great either. I feel like 1000 points is just enough to make it more likely for a player to succeed on one's own merit, rather than being on the right end of a random rock-scissor-paper match-up. Flyers, Flying MCs and even Wraithknights are presenting some legitimate problems to the game balance at lower point values. So then what if I made it a comp event, take those things away? Definitely not interested in all that work! Comp only makes different people happy, at best.

[Rurouni Benshin]

I like it, but I agree with the above comment. For the 3rd mission I assume the attacked could use either table edge for reserves? Or would they be limited to one?

I think I saw something similar in the 5th edition Battle Missions book.  Basically, in a scenario where the Defender is surrounded, the Defending unit would fall back to the table edge it was currently closest to.  Not exactly very consistent, and is subject to a lot of variables, but it did work in practice for the few games that I played (both as Attacker and Defender). 

[Sam Butler]

if you add a 4th scenario you could run a two bracket tournament.

I considered something like that, but there's a rabbit-hole factor in play. Time is the most pressing issue, with the event as planned coming in at over 6 hours of play plus a lunch break. That's fine right where it is. The logical solution to making a bracket are to either make the day longer (meh) or make the armies smaller, say 500 points. So that presents a new problem. I don't think the game works at 500 points any more and I'd wager 750 isn't so great either. I feel like 1000 points is just enough to make it more likely for a player to succeed on one's own merit, rather than being on the right end of a random rock-scissor-paper match-up. Flyers, Flying MCs and even Wraithknights are presenting some legitimate problems to the game balance at lower point values. So then what if I made it a comp event, take those things away? Definitely not interested in all that work! Comp only makes different people happy, at best.
[/quote]

no Same number of rounds.   the "winners" bracket would end up playing one mission,  the "losers"  a different one.

[Benjamin]

no Same number of rounds.   the "winners" bracket would end up playing one mission,  the "losers"  a different one.

I'm missing something. I'm not clear how or why this would work, or not create more work.

Brackets are meant to derive an overall winner. A bracket figures out an overall winner in a tournament of players ideally numbering 2^(# of rounds). 3 rounds, 8 players, 1 winner. 4 rounds, 16 players, 1 winner.

Scoring the same points for different missions in the same round also provides a complexity of problems, most notably fairness.

[spoonsaur]

this looks awesome