Attacker-Defender Event (first draft)

[Chase]

I am wondering if scenarios 2 and 3 aren't heavily favored towards the defender at equivalent points.  I suppose attacker having first turn helps mitigate this?

[Benjamin]

I am wondering if scenarios 2 and 3 aren't heavily favored towards the defender at equivalent points.  I suppose attacker having first turn helps mitigate this?

They are intentionally favored, because the Defender needs to be Defending something. But as each player will have a chance to be a Defender over the two games, it should be on the level. What each players does and how they roll is beyond my control.

[Pat.H]

I am wondering if scenarios 2 and 3 aren't heavily favored towards the defender at equivalent points.  I suppose attacker having first turn helps mitigate this?

Having played the second scenario if you have big foot slogging army with lots of models then it's pretty easy to defend all three. Attacking them with that kind of army is pretty difficult. Also how do flyers work for the defender in scenario 3? Do they come on from the center? If they leave combat airspace do they renter next turn from the center?

[Benjamin]

Also how do flyers work for the defender in scenario 3? Do they come on from the center? If they leave combat airspace do they renter next turn from the center?

Yes, they'd come on from the center of the board, and yes, they'd re-enter from the center. (Picture the planes doing loop-de-loops!)

[Sir_Prometheus]

I sorta feel if the whole point is to have attackers and defenders, people should be allowed to bring separate attacker and defender lists.  You'd want completely different items for the two activities, right? 

I'm just saying, commit to the theme. 

[Tharcil]

I sorta feel if the whole point is to have attackers and defenders, people should be allowed to bring separate attacker and defender lists.  You'd want completely different items for the two activities, right? 

I'm just saying, commit to the theme.

Definitely a bit more book keeping involved, but I agree I'd prefer to have one list for attack and another to defend.

[Chase]

It'd be my guess that if two lists were involved the whole event may need to be overhauled.

Then again, I don't really know what I'm talking about.

[andalucien]

How bout if we make it an attacker - defender - bystander event?

I have a good bystander list...

9 rhinos
9 drop pods

[Benjamin]

If more interested players want to have separate lists, okay. But I think it's a mistake for a couple reasons.

1) More bookkeeping. I'm always in favor of making things simpler.

2) I created the event with a personal interest in knowing which armies and concepts can strike the best balance between attacking and defending. The attackers going first in every scenario means glass cannons suddenly have all the upside and none of the drawbacks, unless those glass cannons were then also asked to defend...

[Cryptognomicon]

I really like the idea behind this event.

I don't think people should have an attacker and an defender list.  There should be only one list. For two reasons.

1) Its easier
2) Its just as fair and might mitigate or even out armies/lists for example that destroy everything in attack mode but not so great in defense.  Every player will get a chance at both. 

Just my two cents. 

[Sir_Prometheus]

Hey, look I think it's a great idea, I think it's a lot of fun, it just gets me thinking about how I would want different units attacking versus defending. 

2) I created the event with a personal interest in knowing which armies and concepts can strike the best balance between attacking and defending. The attackers going first in every scenario means glass cannons suddenly have all the upside and none of the drawbacks, unless those glass cannons were then also asked to defend...

I dunno, isn't that most missions you have to both attack and defend with the same units?

I'd be down with it either way, but having two different lists doesn't sound that onerous.  Or you know, don't, if you don't want to, you could always take the same list for both. 

[Benjamin]

I think I hit upon something that could be really cool and allow two different lists. I'd like some feedback. I'm not married to the idea, but I think it could start an interesting conversation.

The idea would be to limit FOC choices based on the roles of Attacker and Defender. For example:

* Attackers may not take Heavy Support choices. Attackers may not take Fortifications.

* Defenders may not take Fast Attack choices.

Something like that. That way, each list has a distinct feel that could really capture the roles.

[Sir_Prometheus]

Yes!  I was thinking something very similar.  Though, I didn't mention it because the objection had been raised that having two lists seemed complicated, and that would certainly complicate it.

I would also point out that that would prevent people from taking the same list for both (unless they wanted to keep to troops & Elites). 

Similar alternative ideas:

* Attacker must take 1 FA, Defender 1 Heavy.

*All lists are limited to 1 slot of Elite, FA and Heavy, (we are only talking 1000 points) but Attackeers can get full FA, Defenders full Heavy

* Maybe FA is scoring (and denial, this case) for attackers, Heavies are scoring for Defenders.  I might like this best as I think generally Heavies are seen as more powerful, but FA are of course faster, so scoring seems a little more useful for them. 

Completely separate but let's do it because I say it's awesome idea -- DA get to run ravenwing as attackers and deathwing as defenders without taking the requisite special characters.

I assume people have to take the same codex for both lists?

[Benjamin]

I assume people have to take the same codex for both lists?

Yup.

I don't want to tell players they *must* take something.

But I was thinking about something very much like limiting 0-1 in certain FOC slots. I'll come back to this tomorrow, once I've let the idea stew for a bit. I don't see it being bad, but rather lending more toward the casual atmosphere I'd like the event to have.

[Cryptognomicon]

Ben - are you going to be at BG this evening?  Wouldn't mind chatting to you about this event.  I really like the idea behind it.