Annual Megabattle thread of dooom.

[Moosifer]

Sorry Bob, but guard players are within their right to take whichever variant they want as long as they let folks know about it before hand...

I something up Rick, you seem a little off.......

Aunt Flow is in town.

I prefer the Khorney River

[jesterofthedark]

I agree, I know the running score gets complicated.  Sadly, without it there is no way to avoid the whole last turn pile up on objectives that most armies can pull off. 

[Chase]

I guess I've been incredibly unclear.  I suppose it's a result of having the same conversation with different people a couple of times.  I just assume everyone knows what I'm talking about.

The game will consist of 3 tables.  This much we should all know at this point.

The tables will be set up like this:

Moon Surface:  5v5
Planet Surface:  10v10
Underground / Cavern:  5v5

Each team will select the players that are to play on each table.  These tables will play at their own pace and essentially be their own games with the following exceptions:

Each table will have some sort of affect on itself or another table at various points throughout the event.  We have not decided exactly what these affects are.
Each team will score objective points and contribute to an overall team score.  If you win your table, great, but your team may still lose the game.
Players that are chosen to play on a given table may ONLY place models on and affect that table.  If you're on the moon, everything you and your models do will happen on the moon.


The scoring method I'm toying with will have teams score objective points on at the top of each of their turns, starting with round 2.

Example:

Round 1 - Order - Move, shoot, assualt.
Round 1 - Disorder - Move, shoot, assualt.
Round 2 - Order - Score, move, shoot assault.
Round 2 - Disorder - Score, move, shoot, assualt.
etc. etc.

We are going to make sure that the smaller tables (5v5) have exactly half the number of objective points as the larger table (10v10).  The current idea as far as overall scoring goes is this:

Sum all the points accumulated by each side on a given table and divide that number by the number of rounds that table has played.  This number will then be added to the number from the other two tables and the team with the higher score will be our winner.  If a team wipes out all enemy models on a table, they will score the maximum possible points for that table.



Example:

The Moon table has 5 possible objective points that can be scored each round.

Moon Table-  Order scores 15 objective points over 5 rounds.  (15/5) = 3.  They will contribute 3 objective points to their teams score.

Moon Table - Disorder scores 10 objective points over 5 rounds.  (10/5) = 2.  They will contribute 2 objective points to their teams score.

Please note that this table ultimately ends up being worth exactly as many points at the end of the event as are possible to score each round.




The Planet Surface table has 10 possible objective points that can be scored each round.

Planet Surface Table- Order scores 44 objective points over 7 rounds.  (44/7) = 6.29.  They will contribute 6.29 objective points to their teams score.

Planet Surface Table- Disorder scores 26 objective points over 7 rounds.  (26/7) = 3.71.  They will contribute 3.71 objective points to their teams score.

Please note that this table ultimately ends up being worth exactly as many points at the end of the event as are possible to score each round.




The Underground / Cavern table has 5 possible objective points that can be scored each round.

Underground / Cavern Table- Order loses all of it's models 6 hours into the event, after 3 rounds.  The fact that they scored all 5 object points their first scoring turn (top of Round 2) is irrelevant.

Underground / Cavern Table- Disorder kills every model on the opposing side 6 hours into the event, after 3 rounds.  They earn the maximum possible points for their team.  In this case, it's 5.

Please note that this table ultimately ends up being worth exactly as many points at the end of the event as are possible to score each round.



Order: (Moon + Planet Surface + Underground / Cavern) = (3 + 6.29 + 0) = 9.29 points total
Disorder: (Moon + Planet Surface + Underground / Cavern) = (2 + 3.71 + 5) = 10.71 points total

Disorder is vitorius.  GG.



The only issue I can see with this is that which ever team gets second turn ends up "losing" their entire last turn due to the scoring taking place at the top of each player turn.  I wonder if this really matters or not.  Thoughts?  Solutions?

I hope this is more clear.

[Battleground]

The only issue I can see with this is that which ever team gets second turn ends up "losing" their entire last turn due to the scoring taking place at the top of each player turn.  I wonder if this really matters or not.  Thoughts?  Solutions?

What happens if we do one final point tally for BOTH sides AFTER the table section's final round is over?

So, for example, on round 6 of the moon table Team A registered 3 objectives at the start of their turn and then Team B registered 2 objectives at the start of their turn. Assuming that round 6 was considered to be the final played round of the event do to time constraints, what does the game look like if we score one more time for each side based on where the models were at the end of round 6 (effectively scoring 7 rounds even though only 6 were "played")?

Does that make sense?

[Chase]

Yeah, it makes sense and would work fine.  The reason I didn't suggest this is that it promotes a giant land grab on the last turn, which is exactly what has happened (and won) the last two Megabattles... and something I'd really like to avoid (if possible) this year.

Due to the way scoring will work this year, it may still be the best solution.


Another smaller reason is that I really like the idea of having a chance to "respond" to the enemy making it's advances before they are able to score objective points.  This is the reasoning for scoring at the top of each player turn (vs the bottom) and for starting the scoring on round 2.

Again though, having a final scoring phase might be the best solution.

[Achillius]

Yeah, it makes sense and would work fine.  The reason I didn't suggest this is that it promotes a giant land grab on the last turn, which is exactly what has happened (and won) the last two Megabattles... and something I'd really like to avoid (if possible) this year.

Due to the way scoring will work this year, it may still be the best solution.


Another smaller reason is that I really like the idea of having a chance to "respond" to the enemy making it's advances before they are able to score objective points.  This is the reasoning for scoring at the top of each player turn (vs the bottom) and for starting the scoring on round 2.

Again though, having a final scoring phase might be the best solution.

I've heard this Land grab statement a lot. I'd like to point out that in the last two mega battles, the counter assault, which it was had to punch through a huge amount of enemy formations to work. I seem to remember a valk getting shot at by everything on a table plus about 5 flyers to drop it's payload, while the IG counter assault on the bridge was rough and came down to Chaos leaving a whole in their lines for the IG vehicles to get through.  Land grab is being thrown around like it was a walk in the park, and while it wasn't if it had been all I can say is shame on the defenders for making it easy.

Thrust, parry, Riposte.

Chaos is invariably a charge kill maim sort of army, and sometimes forgets to guard what it has taken. This year it will be different because they are so determined to win they're pulling all sorts of people in to help

But if the first player leaves an objective open for the taking why should the other team be prevented from taking it?

I'd thrown up some point ideas in the other thread, I'll move 'em later.

Cheers,
Alan

[Chase]

I've heard this Land grab statement a lot. I'd like to point out that in the last two mega battles, the counter assault, which it was had to punch through a huge amount of enemy formations to work. I seem to remember a valk getting shot at by everything on a table plus about 5 flyers to drop it's payload, while the IG counter assault on the bridge was rough and came down to Chaos leaving a whole in their lines for the IG vehicles to get through.  Land grab is being thrown around like it was a walk in the park, and while it wasn't if it had been all I can say is shame on the defenders for making it easy.

Thrust, parry, Riposte.

Chaos is invariably a charge kill maim sort of army, and sometimes forgets to guard what it has taken. This year it will be different because they are so determined to win they're pulling all sorts of people in to help

But if the first player leaves an objective open for the taking why should the other team be prevented from taking it?

I'd thrown up some point ideas in the other thread, I'll move 'em later.

Cheers,
Alan

These are all valid and good points and make for cool stories.

What I would like to try and discourage via the scoring system is a situation where the primary and best strategy boils down to just piling models onto a certain area each and every time.

I'd much rather see a "Capture and Hold" vs. a "Capture" scenario.  Especially where "Capturing" CAN boil down to just moving models on top of a certain spot on the battlefield.


I saw the suggestions in the other thread.  I like them.  The challenge now is to incorporate them in a way that is cool, fair, balanced, not to complicated, and easily understood by everyone that is playing.  If we can figure a way to do this, it'll be great.




Outside of the last turn issue, are there any other problems with the scoring system and how each table contributes to the overall team score?

[Achillius]

What I would like to try and discourage via the scoring system is a situation where the primary and best strategy boils down to just piling models onto a certain area each and every time.

I'll comment on the rest later, but I think we're promoting the same thing. If you're defending against a "Land grab" then you are not throwing your army around like a sledge hammer. If you are then those more mobile units will make you pay. The last two battles were not lost to "Hordes of Order troops" storming onto an objective.

Take an objective and defend it. That does not mean leaving 1/2 a dozen plague marines standing next to it and hoping for the best


 

Cheers,
Alan

[blantyr]

The team that gets the first turn has that first round of free shots.  Both teams wanted first turn last year, but Chaos bid real low to get it.

Under last year's scoring system, with the score being taken at the end of the second team's turn but not after the first team's turn, Order had a big advantage in the scoring.  I think this scoring advantage more than offset the damage done by the Chaos first turn.

Under this year's system, scoring in both team's turns, the scoring opportunities will be much more balanced.  The side with the first turn will still have that first big round of free shots.  The team moving second will (as in any 40K game) be able to move fearlessly during the last turn of the game knowing that the enemy won't get a chance to respond.  It is easy to be super courageous when you know the enemy isn't going to get another turn.  In any objective based game, it can be to one's advantage to move last.  One has to be willing to take it on the chin on the top of turn one, though.

I'd say both sets of players know the advantages and disadvantages of taking first and last move.  If a team wants wants one or the other, bid low, take the first or last move, and don't whine afterwards about what choice one made.

I do think scoring should be done at end of turn not start of turn.  If this is not done, you are effectively negating the last turn of the game.  It just won't count.  Why play it out?

[Rob S]

What if the final turn's scoring was done based on some sort of kill point system (not Kill Points...) instead of objectives.  That way an army has to decide if they want to push during the second to last turn to gain an objective for that final score but leave themselves vulnerable for the enemy's final turn attack?

[the_trooper]

Derail-

There was talk of special rules for each table being possible.  Would there be considerations for Planetstrike rules being implemented?

If so, the rules for the cavern could be more restrictive in special rules- no superheavies, no gargantuan creatures, no fliers and limited deep striking.  This could aid in a very narrative battle but be great for those without lots of superheavies and would keep the battle gritty and even.

Planetside- normal Apocalypse - no restrictions on superheavies or fliers

Moon surface- Planetstrike Apocalypse. No restrictions on superheavies or fliers.

[Achillius]

Derail-

There was talk of special rules for each table being possible.  Would there be considerations for Planetstrike rules being implemented?

If so, the rules for the cavern could be more restrictive in special rules- no superheavies, no gargantuan creatures, no fliers and limited deep striking.  This could aid in a very narrative battle but be great for those without lots of superheavies and would keep the battle gritty and even.

Planetside- normal Apocalypse - no restrictions on superheavies or fliers

Moon surface- Planetstrike Apocalypse. No restrictions on superheavies or fliers.

No superheavies underground will have to be based on the players registered, I'd not want to tell 5 people you can't bring your toys. Titans should be a no-no for sure.

Flyers makes sense, no Jedi pilots here.

If super heavies go big boom maybe that should make all infantry above move as if in difficult terrain for the next turn

Cheers,
Alan

[Spooky]

If how brave one can afford to be on one's last turn is such a big concern, maybe it's worth considering variable game length like in 5th edition basic rules?

[Logan007]

If how brave one can afford to be on one's last turn is such a big concern, maybe it's worth considering variable game length like in 5th edition basic rules?

Heh, that's what games of apocalypse end up being. You play until a certain time, and have no real way of knowing exactly how many turns you're going to get in.

[YuCeh]

So yeah Idea: I Came up with an idea for the greatest daemon i WILL be having for the mega battle...

Greatest Daemon of Tzeentch
Pts:999

Gargantuan Creature

Unit Stats:
WS  BS  S   T  W   I   A   Ld   Sv
6   6   8   7  7   7   5   10   -/3+

Fearless

Any enemy psychic power being used while <Name> is on the table will cease to function on a 4+, on a 6, the enemy will suffer an immediate perils of the warp.

Daemonic Visage: All units within 24" are at -1 to their Ld.

Living Icon: Acts as an Icon of Tzeentch and Icon of Chaos

He may make a special stomp attack to affect all those in combat with him with the gift of chaos power.

Wings: <Name> counts as having a jump pack. Because of his bulk and strength, he never has to check for dangerous terrain when landing in difficult terrain.

Master of Sorcery: <Name> is assumed to pass all psyker tests and remains unaffected by psychic hoods. He also is not limited to the amount of psyker powers allowed per turn but may only use each power once.

Pskyer Abilities:

Greater bolt of Tzeench: S: 10 AP: 1 Assault D3 24"

Breath of Change: Range:  Hellstorm Template   All models under the template take a wound on a roll of 4+ with no armor or cover saves allowed. It also inflicts a glancing hit on vechicls on a roll of 4+ 


Name of Ability: Place a unit of d6 horrors with in 6" they are treated as if they had deep struck that turn. There may be no upgrades purchased for the squad placed. If a 1 is rolled he takes a wound with no saves allowed.


Do feel free to tweak and or suggest changes. there are no datasheets for this to my knowledge.