Battleground Games Forum
Games Workshop => Warhammer 40K => Topic started by: Logan007 on January 11, 2010, 06:58:26 PM
-
(From Chase)
What has been decided is that we are going to have 3 different tables.
A moon table - 5v5 - made up of three 4x6 tables.
A planet surface table - 10v10 - made of up six 4x6 tables.
An underground cavern table - 5v5 - made up of three 4x6 tables.
Each table will interact to some extent with another table(s) and objective points scored on each table will be combined to determine your teams overall score.
You will not be allowed to deploy or transfer models to a table different than the one your team decides you will be playing on.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have a few questions: Can allies share tech? Can I use my friend's teleport homer? Jump into his Transport? Join my Independant character to a squad of his?
-
You cannot share tech, as of now you can not use an allies: teleport homers, chaos icons, or transports.
For all intents and purposes your army is a stand alone force. You are just working with orther armies on your team. Correct me if I'm wrong on any of this (Chase and Derek).
-
I have a few questions: Can allies share tech? Can I use my friend's teleport homer? Jump into his Transport? Join my Independant character to a squad of his?
This never changes, every year, every F***ing tournament. Are you slow or that desperate?
It was discussed at length at the beginning of the year and the middle of the year as a big possibility since it was found to not be game breaking.
Also, this is apocalypse, not a tournament.
-
not cool calling someone out like that for a good question. Like Rich said we play tested it and it wasn't all that bad. I just wasn't aware that chase or derek we on board with allowing it.
-
That was deleted by me like maybe a minute after i posted or was supposed to be. where the hell did you drag it up from?
-
That was deleted by me like maybe a minute after i posted or was supposed to be. where the hell did you drag it up from?
I guess a lot of us read this message board pretty voraciously -- it's all good dude I didn't take any offense.
-
(From Chase)
What has been decided is that we are going to have 3 different tables.
A moon table - 5v5 - made up of three 4x6 tables...
Is there any intent for special lunar rules relating to low gravity, vacuum, or other 'Not-A-Class-M-Planet" effects?
-
Question for the carvans tables: Will it have specal rules like City of Death? Like enclosed spaces etc...IE Flamers super deadly haha?
-
Question for the carvans tables: Will it have special rules like City of Death? Like enclosed spaces etc...IE Flamers super deadly haha?
One could create quite a few funky rules for the lunar or cavern tables if we were so inclined. I'm not really eager to change things too much, but a little flavor might be interesting.
For the cavern table... is it somewhat risky to take a flyer into such an enclosed space? Do orbital bombardments have trouble getting through the roof of the cavern?
-
From what I understand I believe that on the underground table certain superheavies will not be allowed and Flies I would reason could not work( I understand they could its the future technology makes everyone a good driver, but for the sake of attempting to add a ton of un-needed rules to an already chaotic game.)
-
From what I understand I believe that on the underground table certain superheavies will not be allowed and Flies I would reason could not work( I understand they could its the future technology makes everyone a good driver, but for the sake of attempting to add a ton of un-needed rules to an already chaotic game.)
Sounds reasonable. My Eldar Nightwing are supposed to be super-maneuverable, but sending them into a cavern??? I'm all in favor of 'just say no.'
Using drop pods in caverns also seems off.
I just hope that after eliminating stuff that ought really not be underground neither side ends up losing much more than the other.
-
I don't think it will honestly. I know Order dominates the flyer market right now, while disorder has much more gargantuan creatures. But I don't think either will be allowed underground.
-
I'm actually really looking forward to seeing what the special rules for each table are.
-
You cannot share tech, as of now you can not use an allies: teleport homers, chaos icons, or transports.
For all intents and purposes your army is a stand alone force. You are just working with orther armies on your team. Correct me if I'm wrong on any of this (Chase and Derek).
This is correct. As of right now we are taking this stance. I suppose there's a chance it could change, but I see it complicating things for the people that aren't super rules savvy or "were not aware" of things working that way. With everything going on at this years Megabattle keeping things simple where we can seems like a good idea.
Stuff on the "to do" list include (but aren't limited to) the following:
Figuring out exactly how we want each table to contribute to the overall score. Basically, how we want objectives to be scored on each table, and how they score on each table with influence the game overall.
Our ideas change every day.
Currently the idea is to score objectives at the top of each player turn, starting round 2. The score will continue to accumulate each round after that until the game is over or time is called on the event. At the end of the event, the total number of points scored by each team will be divided by the number of rounds that table finished. The three scored from each table will the be added together to give us our winner.
The moon table and the cavern table (the 5v5 tables) will be worth exactly half of the objective points that the planet surface table (10v10) has.
If one team completely removes the other from any table, they will score the maximum possible points for that table.
Please break this. Explain why its a bad, unfair, or broken method of scoring. This is very, very important.
After that, we need to figure out how we would like objectives to be scored and contested.
We need to decide if we are going to allow players to make use of the Bell of Lost Souls Data Sheets and other stuff. (We are pretty sure we are).
We need to figure out what the special rules for each table will be.
We need to figure out exactly how we want each table to affect another (or itself).
I'm sure there's 30948209348203498203 other things we need to sort out too, I just cant think of them right now. I'll post more later on.
-
I was under the impression that shared teleport homers/icons were going to be used after the test battle...
-
Please break this. Explain why its a bad, unfair, or broken method of scoring. This is very, very important.
I'm sure there's 30948209348203498203 other things we need to sort out too, I just cant think of them right now. I'll post more later on.
With 3 tables, will you allow those tables to keep time independantly? It's probable that the big table will take longer turns that the 2 smaller tables.
Also, imo, sharing tech isn't going to be as big a deal as we think it it -- not when we have superheavies and everything else going on.
As a suggestion, I think if points are going to be calculated at the top of each player turn, then only that active team should score points. What we discovered (if both teams score points each player turn) was that the score gap increases very quickly and it's pretty hard for the underdog to recover.
Also, I think scoring shouldn't start until the beginning of Turn 2, otherwise the team that goes first has a pretty big advantage.
Question: you brought up the point about one table being completely dominated by a side. If, say, the imperials completely clear their board of the forces of Disorder, (and therefore their table scores max points every turn), shouldn't there be something for them to do? Otherwise they're just going to sit there.
-
Currently the idea is to score objectives at the top of each player turn, starting round 2. The score will continue to accumulate each round after that until the game is over or time is called on the event. At the end of the event, the total number of points scored by each team will be divided by the number of rounds that table finished. The three scored from each table will the be added together to give us our winner.
I would think both teams want to play the same number of player turns, and the same number of opportunities to score. If you score at the top of the turn, whatever happens as a result of the bottom of the last turn isn't scored? If you do score at the very end of the game, does not the team that takes the second turn get one more round of scoring than the other side?
You might want to score at end turn, not start turn.
I'm still thinking that taking score frequently forces aggressive play, demanding players push into close contact. This encourages head on charges followed by lots of dice rolling. OK. I know. That's the style a lot of folks prefer here. BG is the wrong store for my preferred style of speed, maneuver and shooting.
But I'll suggest you might not start keeping score until Turn 3, or perhaps have one of the tables keep score only once, at the end of the last turn played. With three tables, you need not have every single table have a scoring scheme that demands a 'damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead' strategy.
-
I'm still thinking that taking score frequently forces aggressive play, demanding players push into close contact. This encourages head on charges followed by lots of dice rolling. OK. I know. That's the style a lot of folks prefer here. BG is the wrong store for my preferred style of speed, maneuver and shooting.
I really don't understand why you think we're playing so aggressively. Last year, there were many objectives that started off in control of one of either Order or Disorder:
1.) The bridge started off Imperial control
2.) The factory thing that was to your right started off in Imperial control
3.) The huge Boot Hill started off more or less in Disorder's control
4.) My section of the board started off in Disorder's control.
In fact, very few of the objectives started off in no man's land.
Those objectives that started play already in control by one side would naturally encourage defensive play for the side that started off in control of them.
-
With 3 tables, will you allow those tables to keep time independantly? It's probable that the big table will take longer turns that the 2 smaller tables.
Also, imo, sharing tech isn't going to be as big a deal as we think it it -- not when we have superheavies and everything else going on.
As a suggestion, I think if points are going to be calculated at the top of each player turn, then only that active team should score points. What we discovered (if both teams score points each player turn) was that the score gap increases very quickly and it's pretty hard for the underdog to recover.
Also, I think scoring shouldn't start until the beginning of Turn 2, otherwise the team that goes first has a pretty big advantage.
Question: you brought up the point about one table being completely dominated by a side. If, say, the imperials completely clear their board of the forces of Disorder, (and therefore their table scores max points every turn), shouldn't there be something for them to do? Otherwise they're just going to sit there.
The 3 tables will play their games independently and at their own pace. If one table gets 10 rounds in, great. If another gets 3 rounds in, great. We will periodically stop EVERY table when the inter-table effects happen (moon shooting at surface, etc). Again, this will be periodic and announced spontaneously, at times the are determined before the event beings. (Example: Moon Lasers will fire on the surface at the 4.5 hour mark, 6 hour mark, 7 hour mark, etc)
I’m not 100% sure what you mean by the rest of the post, Mike.
I have no real idea what opening up inter-army “tech”, teleportation, transporting, and who knows what does for the game. It certainly seems to add an unnecessary element of complication though. We want people to cry as little as possible and be surprised as little as possible.
Re: Scoring… The intent was to start at the top of round two, in which case the active team will score objective points based what they control. At the top of the other teams turn, they will score object points based on what they control. I hope this clears everything up.
If one team is completely wiped out the team that lost will contribute NO points to their teams total at the end of the event. The team that completely eliminated their opponent will score the MAXIMUM amount of points for their team at the end of the event. This number will be equal to the total amount of objective points available per round on that table. If one team tables their opponent in this event, I will be very disappointed.
If they finish earlier than everybody else, play some 40k, hang out, go to dinner, chill in your hotel room, whatever.
-
I would think both teams want to play the same number of player turns, and the same number of opportunities to score. If you score at the top of the turn, whatever happens as a result of the bottom of the last turn isn't scored? If you do score at the very end of the game, does not the team that takes the second turn get one more round of scoring than the other side?
You might want to score at end turn, not start turn.
I'm still thinking that taking score frequently forces aggressive play, demanding players push into close contact. This encourages head on charges followed by lots of dice rolling. OK. I know. That's the style a lot of folks prefer here. BG is the wrong store for my preferred style of speed, maneuver and shooting.
But I'll suggest you might not start keeping score until Turn 3, or perhaps have one of the tables keep score only once, at the end of the last turn played. With three tables, you need not have every single table have a scoring scheme that demands a 'damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead' strategy.
Both teams on each table will play the same number of player turns unless they are unable to finish due to losing all of their models. Every round that begins will end. Each team will have the same number of opportunities to score, however I do see what you’re saying with respect to Team B’s very last turn, after objectives have been scored, having no impact on the games scoring.
I wonder about this… Does it matter? Scoring opportunities remain the same, and each team has the ability to directly influence another teams ability to score the same amount as well.
Team A gets to move, shoot, and assault turn 1 without being able to directly influence Team B scoring. After they are done, Team B DOES get to directly influence Team A’s scoring in round one due to objectives being calculated at the top of the round.
Really, what ends up happening is the Team A gets an extra turn to do “something” that has an influence on the game, but this shouldn’t directly effect scoring.
Scoring at the bottom of each player turn, starting Round 2 ends up favoring a “land grab” strategy that has been responsible for winning the game in the 2 years past. We want to get away from this and encourage VERY aggressive play. What I mean by that is I would like lots of killing, lots of movement where possible, and lots of incentive to fight over areas on the table.
I’d like to hear what the community thinks about the pros and cons of scoring at the top vs. bottom of the round.
Personally, I feel that scoring at the top of the round encourages a team to make a lot more choices (IE, play a better game) than simply planning to pile as many models onto a given area as possible, without the other team getting a chance to respond, and hope a bunch of them live to score again.
-
Would non-private Team specific message boards help you guys out at all? It doesn't appear as though I can password protect any part of the forum.
-
Would non-private Team specific message boards help you guys out at all? It doesn't appear as though I can password protect any part of the forum.
Can you do anything user based? Or possibly group based?
-
Personally, I feel that scoring at the top of the round encourages a team to make a lot more choices (IE, play a better game) than simply planning to pile as many models onto a given area as possible, without the other team getting a chance to respond, and hope a bunch of them live to score again.
What I imagine happening if scoring is done at the top of the round is that the players will still pile as many models onto a given area in order to deny the opposing team points at the top of their next turn.
Either way would probably lead to a balanced game, the difference being that score keeping at the top of the round will lead to smaller overall scores as opposed to score keeping at the end of each round.
-
I agree with what you're saying, Mike.
I would like the opposing team to get the chance to "respond" to the fact that the enemy has occupied an objective before they can score it. In my opinion this represents ACTUALLY taking and holding an objective vs. just having more shit there than your opponent after getting to move on top of it, blast it, and hack it down.
If a team is still able to have more scoring models on an objective after "weathering the storm" for a turn, then I think it's cool to award them points.
You must be right though, I think this will make for much tighter (lower) scores. I think I'm okay with this as it promotes a greater level of intensity and should help to keep people dialed in.
The issue that remains though is the fact that Team B's last turn doesn't really matter at all. They effectively get one less turn of "doing stuff" than Team A does. I feel they do get the same amount of turns to act and react in terms of claiming and protecting objectives though.
Is this a price Team B should pay for getting to set in response to their opponent at the beginning of the game, or is it reason enough to shift the scoring to the bottom of the player turns?
-
Is this a price Team B should pay for getting to set in response to their opponent at the beginning of the game, or is it reason enough to shift the scoring to the bottom of the player turns?
I think the fact that Team B (that is, the team that has the bottom of each game turn) should definitely not lose out on a turn of scoring, especially after having weathered an alpha strike by Team A at the top of turn 1.
On the other hand, I see the merits of scoring at the top of each turn. What if, for the last game turn, we:
1.) Switch scoring to the bottom of the turn?
Or
2.) Don't count scoring for EITHER side until the end of Team B's turn?
Either way gives Team B one last heroic chance to claim victory, and makes the last game turn of the day the most exciting one.
-
Is this a price Team B should pay for getting to set in response to their opponent at the beginning of the game, or is it reason enough to shift the scoring to the bottom of the player turns?
I think the fact that Team B (that is, the team that has the bottom of each game turn) should definitely not lose out on a turn of scoring, especially after having weathered an alpha strike by Team A at the top of turn 1.
On the other hand, I see the merits of scoring at the top of each turn. What if, for the last game turn, we:
1.) Switch scoring to the bottom of the turn?
Or
2.) Don't count scoring for EITHER side until the end of Team B's turn?
Either way gives Team B one last heroic chance to claim victory, and makes the last game turn of the day the most exciting one.
It's not easy. Last years scoring worked pretty well, the tally at the end of each turn made for an interesting motivator,. That said, I cannot help wondering, and forgive me if I over complicate this, if changing the scoring a bit would help the story. I'm not going to suggest points per se but some ideas for modification.
1. Points for claiming an uncontested objective are counted 1/2 for that turn
2. Points for claiming a contested objective should be worth more
3. Points for keeping an objective in your possession should be worth full.
To my mind this encourages players to secure objectives more thoroughly while still reaching for more. And makes those land grabs you mentioned by small elite units harder.
Cheers,
Alan
-
It's not easy. Last years scoring worked pretty well, the tally at the end of each turn made for an interesting motivator,. That said, I cannot help wondering, and forgive me if I over complicate this, if changing the scoring a bit would help the story. I'm not going to suggest points per se but some ideas for modification.
1. Points for claiming an uncontested objective are counted 1/2 for that turn
2. Points for claiming a contested objective should be worth more
3. Points for keeping an objective in your possession should be worth full.
To my mind this encourages players to secure objectives more thoroughly while still reaching for more. And makes those land grabs you mentioned by small elite units harder.
Cheers,
Alan
This is an interesting concept and I'd like to hear more ideas with respect to it. It's certainly cooler, but I wonder if it's better and most imporantly executable in a fair, balamced way over 3 tables.
-
I think the fact that Team B (that is, the team that has the bottom of each game turn) should definitely not lose out on a turn of scoring, especially after having weathered an alpha strike by Team A at the top of turn 1.
On the other hand, I see the merits of scoring at the top of each turn. What if, for the last game turn, we:
1.) Switch scoring to the bottom of the turn?
Or
2.) Don't count scoring for EITHER side until the end of Team B's turn?
Either way gives Team B one last heroic chance to claim victory, and makes the last game turn of the day the most exciting one.
They wouldn't lose a turn of scoring, they would just lose the opperative part of their "turn".
Anyways, there is surely a solution. We will likely do something like is suggested here. Keep the ideas coming.
-
Would non-private Team specific message boards help you guys out at all? It doesn't appear as though I can password protect any part of the forum.
Can you do anything user based? Or possibly group based?
Not without a tremendous amount of micro-management.
I would have to individually change peoples “ranks” and set the forums up to only allow that rank. If a new account is created I would have to be notified and then go in and change their rank also.
I’m only half sure this would work. I’ll mess with it now.
-
If at first you don't succeed, we can always do an e-mail list.
I also have a long disused forum I could make available for Order if doing it here turns awkward.
-
Normally the same stratagem can't be chosen more than once for a side (two players on the disorder side can't both choose flank march for example).
Since we're playing on 3 tables, does that mean that rule holds per table?
Meaning, those same two players could both choose flank march, if they played on different tables, but not if they were both on the planetary surface table.
-
Yes, for all intents and purposes the three tables are three separate games. So, the strategems can be taken by more than one player per side. As long as, like you stated, they are not playing on the same table.
-
As some of you have noticed, I've set up private message boards for the members of each side.
This will require me knowing the names of the actual person and whatever handle they use on the forum. For the most part, players that are signed up and have a BG forum account have been taken care of.
Hopefully we can get everyone on here... If we can, I think it would be great for the community here. I'd love 40 40k players to be using the message boards.
-
I really don't understand why you think we're playing so aggressively. Last year, there were many objectives that started off in control of one of either Order or Disorder:
1.) The bridge started off Imperial control
2.) The factory thing that was to your right started off in Imperial control
3.) The huge Boot Hill started off more or less in Disorder's control
4.) My section of the board started off in Disorder's control.
In fact, very few of the objectives started off in no man's land.
Those objectives that started play already in control by one side would naturally encourage defensive play for the side that started off in control of them.
I'm going to ramble at length about how I see 40K strategy. There are no doubt other ways to perceive it. Sorry if I get tedious, but I figure I'll give my perspective then shut up. Others clearly view the game differently.
There are three 'one trick pony' styles of play I encountered a lot during the V3 and V4 era. Fast assault was over represented with rhino rush marines. Necron and Imperial Guard would do stand and shoot. Orcs would do slow assault. Given the right scenario and terrain, one trick pony armies could be very formidable. If the scenario, opponent and terrain were right, they could be overwhelming. If the scenario, opponent and terrain were wrong, they could go down hard.
I saw a paper scissor rock relationship between the three extreme styles. Stand and shoot armies could eliminate slow assault armies before contact was made. Fast assault armies could get into the face of shooty armies. Slow assault armies outnumbered fast assault armies.
I didn't care for the one trick army approach. One often knew just how the game would go once the first move dice was rolled. Games were repetitive. Once one has been rhino rushed the first hundred times, the second hundred was anticlimactic. I also saw people get discouraged playing the same tactic over and over. After playing a one trick pony force for a month or a year, it was too common to see the army retired.
I preferred a mixed force. I would spend half my points on fast assault, and half on stand and shoot. If my opponent was stand and shoot, I would play aggressively and put my fast assault elements in his face. If he specialized in assault, I would hang back, hurt him as much as I could for as long as I could with my shooting, then jump him with my fast assault just before he hit my shooting forces. If he was balanced, it was a matter of creating the right match ups. I'd strive to have my shooting forces pick off his assault elements while they were still distant, while getting my assault elements in the face of the enemy shooters.
To me, much of the game is about using your forces as they were intended to be used, while denying the opponent a chance to use his forces as they are intended to be used. Thus, I want to shoot the swordsman and stab the rifleman.
Straight 40K is balanced for armies starting about 24 inches apart. Start armies further apart than that, and shooting forces start to have an advantage. Start them closer together, and assault armies start having an advantage.
The default Apocalypse scenario has a one foot wide no man's land. Two assault armies, if both commanders want to use swords, can be in close combat in turn one. However, Apocalypse is commonly played on large tables. A stand and shoot army can be deployed well back away from no man's land. Stand and shoot tactics involves trading time and space for the opportunity to kill an attacking enemy. On a big table, in a six turn game, one might have considerable time and space to give away.
However, the default Apocalypse scenario is an objectives scenario. If one deploys too far back, if one gives away too much time and space, one is going to have difficulty taking the objectives at the end of the game.
The BG mega battles differ from the default Apocalypse scenario in at least two important ways. First, we seldom get in more than four game turns. This effects the equation of how much time and space a shooty force can give up before it has to start advancing into the teeth of an assault force to seize the objectives.
Second, score is kept on objectives frequently, not just at the end of a battle. Thus, if a shooty force trades time and space for opportunities to kill, it is also giving up victory points. The unique BG scoring method demands a land grab every turn. Again, this makes a shooter's approach of trading time and space for opportunities to shoot people harder.
Of course things like flank march, deep strike and troop carrying flyers provide alternate ways of taking objectives. The newer codices also tend to encourage more diverse armies. One doesn't see pure stand and shoot or pure rhino rush as often as in the old days.
Obviously, as Order has won the last couple of years, we can't whine and cry very much. Last year, score was taken at the end of the Order turn. This gave Order lots better opportunity to accumulate victory points than Disorder. When Disorder did managed to claim an objective, Order had a chance to push them off before the score counted. This scoring bias made Order's last turn push possible.
This year's proposed policy of scoring every player's turn rather than only in the second player's turn should balance the scoring considerably. If what I described above reflects advantages assault forces have over shooters, last year the force that moved second had an equally strong advantage in accumulating victory points. The result last year was a very even game, with Order coming from behind to steal a tight one. I'm a bit concerned that we are fixing a big advantage given to Order last year, while we might be keeping the balancing advantages given Disorder.
I raised similar points last year. Perhaps as a result, there was considerable variety in placement of objectives and deployment zones. There ought to be points on the various battle fields where a stand and shoot force gets to do its thing. There ought to be other places where swords and claws clash early and often. I don't think there is a need to push panic buttons. I'd just like to raise my usual warning flags.
-
Sure. So deploy in an area where you already start with control of the objective.
-
Normally the same stratagem can't be chosen more than once for a side (two players on the disorder side can't both choose flank march for example).
Since we're playing on 3 tables, does that mean that rule holds per table?
Meaning, those same two players could both choose flank march, if they played on different tables, but not if they were both on the planetary surface table.
does the same go for the time bid at the beginning or is it 1 bid for the entire side? (all 3 tables)
-
does the same go for the time bid at the beginning or is it 1 bid for the entire side? (all 3 tables)
Good question! I'd let each table bid separately.
-
hmmm, good question. I would almost say every table has the same bid to encourge a unified team feeling. Since for all intents the teams are independant after the game starts, and for the most part can not have much to do with the other tables(not counting the inter table interaction.)
-
My initial opinion was to allow bidding for each table separately... After having read Kevins post... I don't know....
Is it important to preserve the sense of "One side vs The Other" where we can, or is it cooler to allow the team on each table to function independently?
Just one more thing to discuss. What do you guys think about this?
-
Chase it actually comes down to how simple you wish to keep the game. Imho If you want to keep it realistic the three areas should have seperate bids. A lot less arguing on times, if there is any.And why should the undergrounds turn be affected by the moon or surface. But on the other hand it does simplify thing wen it comes to inter planetary interactions from what I have heard and imagined.
-
I think I would like to see three separate bids, one for each table. I don't think it will be that much of a complication.
-
There are going to be people who can't field 4000 points, and others who will be able to make creative use of more than 4000. Thus, we are apt to have some shifting of points from player to player.
Are we going to want to keep any such point swapping limited to players on the same table?
-
There are going to be people who can't field 4000 points, and others who will be able to make creative use of more than 4000. Thus, we are apt to have some shifting of points from player to player.
Are we going to want to keep any such point swapping limited to players on the same table?
I think that it is VERY important that such swapping only occurs on the same table. Luckily, it looks like there is only one or two people with less than 4000 points.
-
Oh, yea I agree. If you have the points going from table to table it can get one sided real quick.
I have a question, are the table going to be set and decided as far as who plays where prior to the event or is going to be allowed that when we show up the day of the event there can be some swapping??
-
I have a question, are the table going to be set and decided as far as who plays where prior to the event or is going to be allowed that when we show up the day of the event there can be some swapping??
Last year, we only got the table lay outs and objectives late, and not all players were participating in the planning equally. I know I was negotiating for a deployment zone the morning of the game.
I think it will be in the interests of both sides to have preliminary plans a day or a week ahead, but I'd be mildly surprised if there isn't a need for last minute tweaks.
-
Last minute deployment tweaks are fine by me. Typically, Chase and I aren't completely aware of where people have chosen to deploy until their models hit the table anyway.
It is well known that last year we were constructing tables right up until the morning before the event. I really hope to avoid that this year and we are on schedule to see to it that it doesn't happen. That said, I wouldn't expect to see any "official" table layout distinctions announced until mid-February at the earliest. That would still be a month before the event in March.
-
Coool cool, its not realistic to think that either team could get something like that pinned down prior to the game. I just wanted to make sure that it wasn't something that was in effect and I didn't know about it.
-
Last year, I recall some rules on deployment. Each player was given a deployment zone. Anything placed on the table during initial deployment had to go within that zone. This restriction did not, as I recall, apply after the game got underway. Units with deep strike, flank march, flyer and other similar rules could show up anywhere their rules allowed. Reserves could march in from any friendly table edge.
I can see a reason for this sort of rule. If all a player's models are together, and the player stays near his models full time, speed of play is improved. If everybody scattered their models all over the place, it could get very confusing.
At the same time, having reserves free to reinforce where they are needed seems an appropriate part of the game. Much would be lost if reserves can't be brought in where they are needed.
I'm entirely content with how this worked last year, but thought I'd mention it now.
-
Deployment will work in exactly the same way that it has in years past unless a tables "special rules" dictate otherwise.
We will not have the special rules for any table set in stone for a while. We haven't really begun to figure through that yet.
-
Without getting flamed too much...
http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1181494_Chaos_Space_Marines_Datasheet_-_Khorne_Lord_of_Battles.pdf (http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1181494_Chaos_Space_Marines_Datasheet_-_Khorne_Lord_of_Battles.pdf)
Is this a superheavy walker or tank?
Superheavies are broken down into walkers, tanks or transports (or sometimes combinations of two). I was thinking about building one but am unsure how it could be fielded since the categories of superheavies tends to vary.
-
Without getting flamed too much...
http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1181494_Chaos_Space_Marines_Datasheet_-_Khorne_Lord_of_Battles.pdf (http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1181494_Chaos_Space_Marines_Datasheet_-_Khorne_Lord_of_Battles.pdf)
Is this a superheavy walker or tank?
Superheavies are broken down into walkers, tanks or transports (or sometimes combinations of two). I was thinking about building one but am unsure how it could be fielded since the categories of superheavies tends to vary.
For what it's worth, I'd say a walker, I may have missed something but vehicles rarely assault. and this has a ws and initiative. Not to mention they have a rule to make it run.
That's a nice project too good luck!
Cheers,
Alan
-
I guess it seems most like a walker.
-
(From Chase)
What has been decided is that we are going to have 3 different tables.
A moon table - 5v5 - made up of three 4x6 tables.
A planet surface table - 10v10 - made of up six 4x6 tables.
An underground cavern table - 5v5 - made up of three 4x6 tables.
Am I correct in guessing that the moon and cavern triple tables will be set up as 12x6 rather than 4x18? If deployment zones are divided evenly among 5 players along the long edge, we'd each have 2.4 feet of deployment area?
Is the planet table intended as 24x6, 18x8, or something more creative?
I'll raise one more issue from last year. Last year's objectives defaulted to being destructible unless they were built firmly into the table in a way they couldn't be removed. Last year, we lost quite a few objectives, which made the fighting in those area semi meaningless. Units would shift to reinforce adjacent tables were fights were still relevant.
I see no reason to change, but figured folk might want to bounce ideas around a bit. Sooner is better than later.
Also, might objectives be made more or less ginger resistant?
-
(From Chase)
What has been decided is that we are going to have 3 different tables.
A moon table - 5v5 - made up of three 4x6 tables.
A planet surface table - 10v10 - made of up six 4x6 tables.
An underground cavern table - 5v5 - made up of three 4x6 tables.
Am I correct in guessing that the moon and cavern triple tables will be set up as 12x6 rather than 4x18? If deployment zones are divided evenly among 5 players along the long edge, we'd each have 2.4 feet of deployment area?
Is the planet table intended as 24x6, 18x8, or something more creative?
I'll raise one more issue from last year. Last year's objectives defaulted to being destructible unless they were built firmly into the table in a way they couldn't be removed. Last year, we lost quite a few objectives, which made the fighting in those area semi meaningless. Units would shift to reinforce adjacent tables were fights were still relevant.
I see no reason to change, but figured folk might want to bounce ideas around a bit. Sooner is better than later.
Also, might objectives be made more or less ginger resistant?
The Moon and the Cavern tables will both be arranged as 6x12 and the planet surface will be 6x24. This decision was made in order to eliminate the "dead corners" that people were forced to set up on in previous years. Those corners saw very little action for the amount of real estate they consumed.
I am now very much aware of the problems inherent in a destructible objective and currently have no plans to allow this to happen again. Every table section will remain relevant for the entirety of the event - barring any "nurglish" things that might destroy one according to the rules of apocalypse.
-
The Moon and the Cavern tables will both be arranged as 6x12 and the planet surface will be 6x24. This decision was made in order to eliminate the "dead corners" that people were forced to set up on in previous years. Those corners saw very little action for the amount of real estate they consumed.
I am now very much aware of the problems inherent in a destructible objective and currently have no plans to allow this to happen again. Every table section will remain relevant for the entirety of the event - barring any "nurglish" things that might destroy one according to the rules of apocalypse.
I like this post a lot. It removes a couple of my fears from the previous year.
-
Is assaulting a member of the opposing side going to be allowed? I just want to make sure Alan can plan appropriately.
-
Is assaulting a member of the opposing side going to be allowed?
We haven't decided if we are going to allow players to assualt yet. We're trying to figure something out that I think most players will be okay with.
;)
-
Is assaulting a member of the opposing side going to be allowed?
We haven't decided if we are going to allow players to assualt yet. We're trying to figure something out that I think most players will be okay with.
;)
You owe me a new phone as I tried to high five you through the internet.
-
Is assaulting a member of the opposing side going to be allowed?
We haven't decided if we are going to allow players to assualt yet. We're trying to figure something out that I think most players will be okay with.
;)
Umm.... Aren't you being overly ambitious?
-
:) I was just kidding around. Have no fear. We've talked about messing with plenty of different mechanics but outside of scoring issues everything will remain normal.
-
Chase is right.
Have no fear. But, you might wanna bring that safety helmet of yours, you know the one they make you wear when you eat soup. Better safe than sorry.
-
Chase is right.
Have no fear. But, you might wanna bring that safety helmet of yours, you know the one they make you wear when you eat soup. Better safe than sorry.
OK, I have a reputation. I'm not confident that the current arms race is going to lead to a fun game. I don't know that I'm the only one with concerns. In last Thursday's grumble fest, there was mention made that someone on Order side might field an all terminator army. Someone mentioned a all Titan army. Someone thought that Careful Planning was an unbalancing stratagem, that super-heavies should by rule be forced to start the game on the table. Concern was expressed that every marine army might choose to flank march, or to carry a void grenade.
So I'm not alone in thinking Apocalypse might get out of hand.
Last year, four stompas lined up opposite my force. I was on an outside flank table. I got lots of help. It turned out Paul was screwed worse than me, but this year we have straight tables. Does every army have to be prepared to meet massed gargantuans?
I've heard rumors of massed doomsday machines on the moon. Sure, one or two are fun, but do we really want to game out Cold War mutual assured destruction?
I've never liked extreme armies. I didn't like rhino rush in the early V3 days. I didn't like the pure stand and shoot guard of the early V3 days. Armies that can do one thing well but only that one thing can be devastating given the right opposition, terrain and scenario. They can be helpless given the wrong opposition, terrain and scenario. I think it wise and prudent that GW has given the Imperial Guard more options than stand and shoot, while toning down what a marine player might do with six rhinos full of melee specialist.
To my mind, Apocalypse is supposed to be safeties off. Composition, force organization and similar governing mechanism that prevent highly specialized one trick armies have been removed. Thus, people are free to build and field extreme armies that do one thing well, that will overwhelm and crush a balanced and versatile opposition force.
And we do have players fielding balanced forces. We also have straight tables, so to some extent we will be playing 20 one on one games. We also have a scenario that is known in advance, with heavy lobbying going on to alter the scenario to favor one side or the other.
I suggested that the problem might be some players overloading on big models in an environment where not all players are ready to face them. I suggested there might be prudent limits set on the amount of points any given player might put into the big models.
The response was that the mega battle should be the once a year opportunity for players to pull out those favorite models that one never gets a chance to play. BG does not want to start restricting what big models might be put on the table.
I can sympathize. A long time ago, at a game store far far away, when my Eldar were the only force I owned, I encountered the Vehicle Design Rules. I went out and bought kits sufficient to build five models, two of which were super-heavies, four of which were flyers. I'd kind of like to put them down once in a while. I would understand, however, if I was told I couldn't put all of them down at once.
But it is one thing to want an opportunity to dust off an old model. It is another thing to start building a ton of new models, all similar in style and effect, with the intent to present someone on the other side of the table with a problem most armies cannot solve. The former is understandable. The latter is being an (expletive deleted.)
Some things can be done to reduce the effect of one trick pony armies. If someone is fielding many titans, they can be spread out so that no one player has to face off against all four. If many armies can't cope with an all terminator force, there are some that would find it an interesting challenge. The game referees might arrange that one trick pony armies face off against opponents that can give them an interesting fight. Four stompas, for example.
If such moves might be made to keep the extreme armies fun, I'd like to see it. It is neat to see all Rob's titans wandering around the table, or even standing with their heels against the back table edge. If I had that many terminators, I'd want an excuse to field the en mass too. However, the response seems to be "If They are doing That, we are justified in doing This." At a war of ideas level, how does one allow neat model collections to be fielded while avoiding power gamers attempting to create implausible mismatches and stuff them in peoples faces.
I can tell the difference easily, of course. The people with neat model collections are all on the Order side, while the heartless egotistical power gamers are drawn to play Chaos.
Though I'm not sure my view is entirely objective. ;)
-
I can tell the difference easily, of course. The people with neat model collections are all on the Order side, while the heartless egotistical power gamers are drawn to play Chaos.
Though I'm not sure my view is entirely objective. ;)
While we are the better looking and smarter team, we aren't all powergamers. Would'ja care to continue the bed wetting before your obvious demise?
-
Some progress has been made on the scoring method front. It'll be posted over the next couple days.
I'm pretty sure it's something that everyone will find interesting, fair, and fun. I also think people will be pleased with the choices we've made.
With respect to army design, etc. Derek and I hope that people will build cool and/or appropriate armies that players can both enjoy playing and enjoy playing against. In fact it's paramount to us.
We feel as though the players are aware of this.
-
If anyone has any problems with someone elses army, you came into this fight knowing the possibilities of what people were bringing. Example being my plague tower in the playtest, I spent 700 points on something that literally died before I did anything with it. Was I mad? Yes, but that's the nature of the game and I still had fun playing. So if you're gonna bitch and moan about another force, don't play! If rob sends 5 titans my way, I just look at it as only 5 models to kill. If murph brings all termies, who cares, that's why you have allies to help out where you are weak.
All in all, stop crying about losing. If you don't think you're gonna have fun, quit. Like derek said before last years battle started, expect to lose everything you field! If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen.
-
OK, I have a reputation. I'm not confident that the current arms race is going to lead to a fun game. I don't know that I'm the only one with concerns. In last Thursday's grumble fest, there was mention made that someone on Order side might field an all terminator army. Someone mentioned a all Titan army. Someone thought that Careful Planning was an unbalancing stratagem, that super-heavies should by rule be forced to start the game on the table. Concern was expressed that every marine army might choose to flank march, or to carry a void grenade.
...
Thanks for this, Bob. It is well written and the ideas presented are not really incorrect or off base. You've stated several points very well.
Sadly, it boils down to a situation where Derek and I have to make a choice. The choice is simply how much we want to micro-manage the event. It's impossible to please everyone. For each person that's happy with one thing there's going to be someone else who isn't 100% satisfied. Such is life I suppose.
I think the message we've sent over the past few years is pretty clear. We want an event where everyone can walk away saying that they had a great time, blew stuff up, had fun with their fellow gamers, laughed, and had a positive 40k experience they aren't likely to forget.
We want an event that is talked about and praised all year. It's as simple as that. Many steps have been taken to make this years Megabattle the biggest and best yet.
A lot of time and effort goes into organizing, coordinating, and building everything for the event on our end. We just ask that the players be responsible and respect our intentions for the Megabattle. This is not at all to say, "don't bring cool or extremely powerful stuff" but we do expect that you, as the individual and as a team, strongly consider the spirit of the event.
If you are the type of person who's super into thinking everything through for months, coming up with the best possible course of action for yourself and your team, designing the perfect army list that is just about unkillable and is sure to lay your opponent to waste with the quickness, then great. When I play games I'm the same exact way. I know exactly where you're coming from and exactly how much enjoyment can be had through it all. The thing is... this really isn't the event for that.
Nothing is less satisfying than being extremely confident in a list, deck, strategy, plan, team, situation, or any combination of all that and then matching up against someone or some people that simply had no idea what was going to happen, were completely mismatched, and stood no chance. I've been the guy dishing that stuff out... it sucks, it feels wasteful, it feels awful, and it definitely isn't any fun. If you're this type of person you've almost certainly been there too. You probably know exactly what I'm talking about.
We've also all been on the receiving end of something like this at one point in our gaming careers... It just simply isn't any fun for anyone. The guy kicking ass isn't happy. The guy getting his ass kicked isn't happy. It just isn't a great situation.
The thing about it is... if it happens at the Megabattle... one bad mood, any bad blood, one bad attitude, or whatever else emerges it effects the "vibe" of the ENTIRE event. It's plain to see and infects the entire room. I'd REALLY like to avoid that, if you catch my drift.
Powerful and effective comes in many different shapes, sizes, and scales. If you're bringing the Heat, work with us and not against us please.
When building your list just use your best judgement. If you think that it's very likely the guy across from you is going to go home 2 hours into the event pissed off, there was probably something wrong... and it probably wasn't what he took.
Losing your entire army is going to happen but the way in which it happens tends to sit one way or another with a person based on how everything goes down, you know? Getting smoked by 5 titans before you even get to move your stuff sucks, a lot. Your own "big thing" blowing up to a random laz cannon or multi-melta shot and wiping out your entire army is something entirely different.
One last thing and then "mom" will go to bed...
We are just under 2 months away from the event and already there has been a lot of smack talking. Most of it is fine, fun, goofy, sarcastic, and all that, which is fine, expected, and almost encouraged so long as it remains kind hearted. Some of it, however, is probably a little too pointed and a little too much. It's plain to see that the mood has shifted towards a "my side vs. your side" type of feel. That's not good. This game is for fun, it is definitely not something that should fuel any animosity towards players, groups, "tables", or teams.
Let's have fun with it. It's probably in everyones best interest to not take it all so seriously.
Let's keep this all in mind.
-
Here is my idea on a scoring system. Flip a coin at the beginning of the day and declare the winner, then let everyone beat the crap out of each other with their armies not worrying about the point system at all. Both you and derek mentioned in the store that you wanted to see the moon table be a place where the competitive players in the store go to duke it out. With your long "mom" post you are contradicting everything you said you guys hoped for. You want to make this event the biggest and best ever, and I think that it can be, but you are pretty much telling some folks that their idea of fun (building lists, planning out things) is not what is neccessary.
You say you dont want bad blood, hurt feelings, etc.. then dont have a scoring system period and play for the stories. People can talk about how their command squad took down a titan or how my baneblade went apocolypic while in the enemy lines wiping out an entire marine unit. That is what Apoc is about, not "well i want to handicap a side from taking bigger things from last year because the winning side doesnt feel as though it could be fair"
Bob, I really am trying to hold my tongue on this, but your post warranted this response.
You talk about people worried about a list of things.
Someone fielding an all terminator Army - Murph
Someone fielding an all Titan Army - Rob Sims
Someone fielding a titan army that comes in reserve either with careful planning or just plain reserves - Rob Sims
Your reasoning behind your "lawl I wanna sit back and shoot" post is flawed. The concerns that were raised were NOT theorheticals but actually what will/has happened. You mentioned that you had help last year, which is the ENTIRE point of being on a team. This is not golf where you play 18 holes by yourself, but football where you have 10 other teammates supporting you.
Now that it is out of my system, gl hf eat babies...
-
I agree with rick 100 percent with this comment and what I was trying to get at with mine. Why should anyone cater to the needs of the opponent. If you want a stand and shoot game, why are we then forced to just eat your fire? That's why flankmarch and deepstrike and outflank are in the game. Everyone thinks too much on the rules as to how can we butcher the game to be "fair" and not to just have fun. My thoughts are just to stick with the book and say screw the tweaking.
And my thoughts on army composition are as follows... bring whatever you want, if you feel like you are gonna get your ass handed to you by a specific person, don't field in front of them. Its not like either team is gonna put their strong players against shit bums anyway so there shouldn't be a problem with it. Were all just ruining the spirit of the game by tweaking the rules to nerf the big players. That's what teamwork is for. I'm sure will help you out by softening up the opposition with titan fire if it looks grim on your table.
Just remember, its not you against 20 other people. I've been talking strategy with the people I'm going to be next to at the battle for weeks now as to how one of us will make up for where the other lacks. Its what I did with chris at the doubles tourney and it worked out great. This is why the order and disorder forums are up, so you can talk strategy.
If this post made no sense its because I literally just woke up when I wrote this :P
-
That is what Apoc is about, not "well i want to handicap a side from taking bigger things from last year because the winning side doesnt feel as though it could be fair"
This does not in any way shape or form represent what Chase said in his post, or what we have been saying regarding the event.
-
Here is my idea on a scoring system. Flip a coin at the beginning of the day and declare the winner, then let everyone beat the crap out of each other with their armies not worrying about the point system at all. Both you and derek mentioned in the store that you wanted to see the moon table be a place where the competitive players in the store go to duke it out. With your long "mom" post you are contradicting everything you said you guys hoped for. You want to make this event the biggest and best ever, and I think that it can be, but you are pretty much telling some folks that their idea of fun (building lists, planning out things) is not what is necessary.
You say you don't want bad blood, hurt feelings, etc.. then don't have a scoring system period and play for the stories. People can talk about how their command squad took down a titan or how my baneblade went apocalyptic while in the enemy lines wiping out an entire marine unit. That is what Apoc is about, not "well i want to handicap a side from taking bigger things from last year because the winning side doesn't feel as though it could be fair"
Rather than a coin flip, I proposed that the side who had the most fun should win. At the end of the game, each side in turn would be asked if they had fun. We could find a decibel meter.
Bob, I really am trying to hold my tongue on this, but your post warranted this response.
You talk about people worried about a list of things.
Someone fielding an all terminator Army - Murph
Someone fielding an all Titan Army - Rob Sims
Someone fielding a titan army that comes in reserve either with careful planning or just plain reserves - Rob Sims
Your reasoning behind your "lawl I wanna sit back and shoot" post is flawed. The concerns that were raised were NOT theoreticals but actually what will/has happened. You mentioned that you had help last year, which is the ENTIRE point of being on a team. This is not golf where you play 18 holes by yourself, but football where you have 10 other teammates supporting you.
Now that it is out of my system, gl hf eat babies...
I wasn't interested in pointing fingers and naming names. I just wanted to illustrate that I wasn't the only one with concerns. The concerns Order has are not theoreticals either.
Last year I was on the outside of a flank table. Paul's four stompas ended up facing off against five opposition armies. With this year's linear table set up, nobody is going to get that much help . I lost most of my army to an apocalyptic explosion. I lost my "big thing" to a strength 8 missile shot from outer nowhere, where my opponent managed to roll three chain reaction damage results in a row. Neither of those things were particularly fun at the time, but that's the sort of thing you remember forever. I'm not going to forget last year's mega battle. I think one object of such battles is to create memories, and last year the dice created some doozies.
But I didn't have the right stuff to match up against the guy on the other side of the table. Getting clobbered memories are nice, but the chance to do a little clobbering would be nice too. Fortunately, my fighters got a little shot at glory in the end, playing a role in the last turn victory.
I do like the idea of different styles of play or levels of escalation on different tables. The caverns might be for those without a ton of exotic models, as many types of such models are banned. The moon might be designated as a no whining zone. There are players on both side who are enthused by gloves off no holds barred. Send them to the moon. This might leave the big table for players with more moderate forces.
I am trying to make constructive suggestions so that the players opposing each other across the table are paired to make for an interesting fight. The response I'm getting seems like a glorification of the extreme army, where creating an uninteresting fight is the goal. I note that last year the Order players were assigned deployment zones before we knew who was going to be where on the other side. There was no opportunity to switch deployment zones at the last moment to create interesting fights. Might players with exotic one trick pony forces, lots of big models and much bravado be interested in letting the other side know where they intend to deploy? Do we want to put the iron against the iron, or is it the goal to create mismatches?
While I strongly believe the game should be set up so that stand-and-shoot tactics can be effective, this year I'm not intending to do stand and shoot. My current list features a strong dash of kamikaze. I'm likely to die again, it seems nigh on certain, but I hope to create some memories in the process.
-
Since it's air out all grievances thread, I'll go ahead and stop beating around the bush.
On the topic of the megabattles:
First year from administrative stand point was fun. Players were pretty self regulating for the most part which led to epic battles and fun times. There was some issues in so far as people not knowing their rules out of ignorance of malice, on that it is unsure but that did put a drag on things. People suppressed the bad feelings and it did turn out to be a really fun event.
Second year saw the evolution of the carebearing. Rules were changed mid game which made for a bad gaming experience. Again in the second year, people had problems with remembering the rules properly. It made for some obnoxious moves that were only called out by people of the opposing team. There was lots of whining at this second megabattle which clearly did put a damper on things as far as overall enjoyment.
On the topic of theme:
I will say theme and fluff are in the eyes of the beholder but there are some things that are universal.
Rob's titan legion- Legio Ignatium (sp) is pretty rad. It's in theme and pretty powerful. I also can't wait to see even more awesome Death Korp manliness on the table. Whole companies of Ultramarines which will be just beautiful and there are a couple of others which are taking theme to an awesome level.
There are those, however, who twist theme and apoc rules to allow for non-thematic armies. Sure, apocalypse armies allow for space marines to ally with guard and by extension all their superheavies but how is it thematic to have a space marine player take a baneblade? How is it thematic to take toys-r-us specials, paint them a different color with no modification done to them and call them a 40k model? How is it thematic to have female space marines? We are talking about a thematic battle but we will allow the most fluff-egregious stuff to happen. Frisbees are not FW models, so don't insult those who when to that level of quality with terrible scratch builds. I kept hearing poor arguments against traitor guard when people attempting to field FW rules with Frisbees and other 2 dollar toys with bad paint jobs were acceptable by the same team?
I wanted a smaller force this year because of the chaos of the other years. I wanted something more manageable than a whole army of berserkers, daemons and one big daemon. It gets tiresome to deal with rules issues while pushing around so many models. I wanted to have fun. So I decide to change my army a bit and continue to talk of the same impending doom that is every year. At this point I get called out as being against theme and against fluff where there are others making poor scratch builds to justify the ability to field a powerful rules set.
I guess me meticulously building the Dies Irae / Legio Mortis is too much for people.
My proposed fix? Setup a 5th table full of trenches and have it for Paul and I to duke it out DKoK vs. Vraksian Renegades.
-
Here is my idea on a scoring system. Flip a coin at the beginning of the day and declare the winner, then let everyone beat the crap out of each other with their armies not worrying about the point system at all. Both you and derek mentioned in the store that you wanted to see the moon table be a place where the competitive players in the store go to duke it out. With your long "mom" post you are contradicting everything you said you guys hoped for. You want to make this event the biggest and best ever, and I think that it can be, but you are pretty much telling some folks that their idea of fun (building lists, planning out things) is not what is neccessary.
You say you dont want bad blood, hurt feelings, etc.. then dont have a scoring system period and play for the stories. People can talk about how their command squad took down a titan or how my baneblade went apocolypic while in the enemy lines wiping out an entire marine unit. That is what Apoc is about, not "well i want to handicap a side from taking bigger things from last year because the winning side doesnt feel as though it could be fair"
Interesting response. I suggest you reread what I wrote.
-
I've been thinking about building a Plague Tower made out of my 1981 Kenner Toy Death Star Playset. What do you guys think about that? The canon is pretty sweet and when someone destroys it I can press this little button on the side that makes it pop off like it was exploded. Even cooler, it comes complete with a trash compactor with a dianoga monster (which I think is very appropriate for a Nurgle army).
Here's the stat line for the dianoga:
WS BS S T W I A LD Sv Pts
8 6 6 3 9 4 4 10 2+ 200
The canon fires the equivilent of 8 vortex grenades on its turn
I think this is totally fair.
-
That is what Apoc is about, not "well i want to handicap a side from taking bigger things from last year because the winning side doesnt feel as though it could be fair"
This does not in any way shape or form represent what Chase said in his post, or what we have been saying regarding the event.
Rick over stated things as he has a tendency to do but I think you might want to consider more where that impression may have come from.
You have openly admitted to actively carebearing.
You have stated that you intend to alter the standard rules with the explicit intention of increasing the relative value of 'small stuff' over "bigger things".
And it is clear to everyone that your concerns are about one particular side and we all know who chase was talking to in his post as far as people essentially 'over optimizing' their lists and making the other team feel like they don't have a chance.
This does not make your position in any way automatically wrong (arguments can be made for all of those positions). But I don't think it is fair to pretend Rick's statement bore no relationship to reality.
-
This does not make your position in any way automatically wrong (arguments can be made for all of those positions). But I don't think it is fair to pretend Rick's statement bore no relationship to reality.
How we are choosing to score the game in order to make it fun for EVERYONE (apparently this is considered "carebearing") is entirely different from our request that people field an army that is not only fun to play, but also fun to play against.
To do otherwise, is to play against the spirit of the Megabattle.
This is why I felt that Rick's response did not represent Chase's post.
-
That is what Apoc is about, not "well i want to handicap a side from taking bigger things from last year because the winning side doesnt feel as though it could be fair"
This does not in any way shape or form represent what Chase said in his post, or what we have been saying regarding the event.
Rick over stated things as he has a tendency to do but I think you might want to consider more where that impression may have come from.
You have openly admitted to actively carebearing.
You have stated that you intend to alter the standard rules with the explicit intention of increasing the relative value of 'small stuff' over "bigger things".
And it is clear to everyone that your concerns are about one particular side and we all know who chase was talking to in his post as far as people essentially 'over optimizing' their lists and making the other team feel like they don't have a chance.
This does not make your position in any way automatically wrong (arguments can be made for all of those positions). But I don't think it is fair to pretend Rick's statement bore no relationship to reality.
His impression has come from the fact that he thinks we are going to heavily weight some sort of scoring system towards one side vs. the other. This is incorrect and is basically an impossibility. What has been discussed at length is how we might build a system that takes the focus away from super heavy models in terms of scoring. This favors or handicaps no one prior to the event.
It can (and has) been referred to as "carebearing". In realty it's just taking steps towards what we think would ultimately create for better gameplay overall. This "carebearing" was something that would need to happen if we were going to keep things in line and fun for everyone. That's a fact and I'm pretty sure no one disagrees. Please keep in mind that nothing can be actively done unless it is done... Nothing has been done yet.
Our intent was most certainly to alter the scoring "rules" (which were apparently extrapolated from something that has nothing to do with scoring, btw... which is a VERY important thing to consider) such that troops / infantry / whatever were more valuable in terms of scoring than anything else.
Yes, the concerns are about one particular side or most specifically, one particular table. Based on what we've heard, those concerns are most definitely justified. I wasn't speaking about a person in particular but more of a general mentality that seems to be emanating from more than a handful of players.
Rick's statement doesn't have any relationship to reality because his stance is against "what might have been" not what was covered by what I wrote in any respect. I didn't mention, refer to, or elude to scoring at all. I spoke towards the "bigger picture".
Derek and I had a short conversation last night about the importance of micro-managing the event. We decided that heavy micro-management ultimately accomplishes nothing based on factors that are not obvious to people playing in the game. We've decided to change few things (vs. many) and add an element that we think allows each player to play around. The people that want 1/10/30 scoring won't be disappointed.
We also had a different conversation regarding the purpose of the event, what we want out of it, the problems we've seen in the past, and the problems we think we see now. The result, my reaction, was to post what I did.
Again, we want all players to have fun with whatever they bring and we want all players to have fun with whatever they fight. If you think that someone will not have ANY fun fighting what you've got, we'd like you to consider the event as a whole before showing up with it.
-
I won't have fun being pitted against a Frisbee.
-
Ugh! Who cares, everyone is making such a mountain out of a molehill! Its not that bad at all! Jeez if people are gonna be wimps, quit! I don't see the point in nerfing your army so pansy mcgee can stand a chance. I for one am looking to absolutely crush my opponent cuz its my nature, will it happen? Probabally not but its the nature of the game. If you are a sore loser, quit now. That's my oppinion at least. I would feel excellent having someone try to put me in my place for once! But apparently noone else shares my enthusiasm...
-
Since it's air out all grievances thread, I'll go ahead and stop beating around the bush.
A good deal of your grievances seem directed at me. I'd like to make a few comments.
The "Frisbee" model is a plastic kit of similar quality, detailing and part count to GW models. The price was a bit less than GW would sell it for, but it would take considerable effort to find models priced as high as GW. The primary armament is twin WYSIWYG long barreled D-Cannons. The secondary is a WYSIWYG bright lance. I'm no Golden Demon winner, but I paint to a respectable standard, and I put as much care into painting that model as any of my other vehicles. The model was built for the Vehicle Design Rules, and was intended to be played WYSIWYG. It was built long before Apocalypse was dreamed of. I want to put it on the table. There are no Apocalypse data sheets for a twin long barreled D-Cannon super-heavy, so I chose a standard Eldar data sheet that was as close as I could get. This seems a better alternative than trying to create my own data sheet.
I was advised I should more clearly identify the rear facing by another Order player. I intend to highlight a pair of lines that were molded into the model at the factory. These lines identified the rear quarter last year. The armor is 12 12 11, so the front/side divide lines will not be highlighted.
The KFC bucket and toilet paper orbital defense laser has been properly insulted and banned. The four lampshade stompas I faced last year were not, and properly so. Considerable effort has gone into many of the scratch builds we've seen in the past, and will see in the future. I don't think that only those who can afford Forgeworld prices ought to be placing big models. Expect to see more scratch builds this year, though I have constructed none myself. I believe scratch builds should be welcomed as single models. I am concerned with the construction of a large number of the same model, whether they be GW, FW or scratch build. One of anything I believe should be fine. 3000 points worth of many copies of the same model is apt to be a problem. Anyone doing that is likely trying to create a mismatch, is likely power gaming.
I believe my model is well above the KFC bucket and toilet paper standard. The rumor I've heard is that a bunch of people on the Chaos side don't like the model, and are going to blow it away at first opportunity. This is the sort of attitude I'm expecting from the Chaos side just now.
I'll add that I've never seriously considered playing the Ladies of the Night in the mega battle. Their fluff suggests that they should avoid such events. They use chaos powers too much. The presence of their male brothers would too much stress their discipline and control, while the Imperials wouldn't trust them as allies. They are not missing because they don't match GW's fluff, but because of their own fluff.
I prefer to paint female figures. Maybe I'm crazy, or maybe everyone else is. I suspect the latter. Anyway, I've put a lot more work into the Lady's fluff than those who follow the GW story line blindly, and I suspect I've had more fun in the process. We have different ideas on how people might have fun with the game. Let's leave it at that. I'm not going out of my way to diss your army. In fact, I've used armies on my own side as examples of possible problems rather than going after opposing players. I'd appreciate a similar courtesy.
-
Again, we want all players to have fun with whatever they bring and we want all players to have fun with whatever they fight. If you think that someone will not have ANY fun fighting what you've got, we'd like you to consider the event as a whole before showing up with it.
Chase you can't please everyone. Some people would LOVE to be pitted against Rob's titans or worse because they think it would be totally cool and they want to work out how to face a variety of hard stuff with their friends.
Other people are going to moan about how unfair it is for them to face an all titan force and how they can't do anything to them and would have no fun at all.
So will people have "ANY fun" fighting an all titan force? There is no one right answer.
Is a well organized group of players isolated on a single table fun to play against? Same answer. Depends upon who you ask.
So who should I ask if my stuff won't be 'any fun' to play against? What if it interacts with someone eles stuff? If I loose do I get to b1tch that my opponent brought things that weren't 'any fun' even though you 'told them not to'?
You can NOT please everyone. I know you want to. And I think it is great that you do. But it is impossible.
-
Please keep in mind that nothing can be actively done unless it is done... Nothing has been done yet.
Yes it has. Asking people to bring a particular kind of force and to leave another at home is just as active as making a rule. It is not as cut and dry but you are clearly broadcasting a message (yes I hear it) and that is active.
-
Both you and derek mentioned in the store that you wanted to see the moon table be a place where the competitive players in the store go to duke it out. With your long "mom" post you are contradicting everything you said you guys hoped for.
It seems that Chase and Derek have decided not to micro manage the battle. I don't think we can expect them to mandate that the competitive players head for the moon. I do think it would be a good idea. Make the moon a gloves off, no holds barred, no whining table. I'm sure we can find ten players who would take up the challenge. The survivor would certainly have boasting rights, assuming anyone survives.
But I don't think Chase and Derek are going to mandate it. It would be up to the two sides to find their five most macho gung ho extremists. I'd kind of like to see what happens. I'm concerned that extreme gaming might get too off the wall to be fun. Perhaps you might want to find ten people who could prove me wrong.
And, no, I'm not eager to be one of the ten. Who was it that said, "Let's you and him fight!"?
-
Bob AFAIK getting 5 from each side IS the problem right now. Too many people going 'let's you and him fight'.
If there were 10 players all on the same page about what was going to be fun I don't think you would see one iota of concern from Chase and Derrek. They are quite legitimately worried about people who are NOT those 5 people getting pitted against those who ARE.
This can be seen in the lack of concern over who will be on the cavern table. The rules are restrictive enough that the *impression* is that nobody can break it wide open and 'make' someone else not have fun.
So I guess the simple direct question is do you have 5 order players who want (not just can, but want) to play that kind of pre-planned let's break it wide open game of 40k?
-
Bob AFAIK getting 5 from each side IS the problem right now. Too many people going 'let's you and him fight'.
If there were 10 players all on the same page about what was going to be fun I don't think you would see one iota of concern from Chase and Derrek. They are quite legitimately worried about people who are NOT those 5 people getting pitted against those who ARE.
This can be seen in the lack of concern over who will be on the cavern table. The rules are restrictive enough that the *impression* is that nobody can break it wide open and 'make' someone else not have fun.
So I guess the simple direct question is do you have 5 order players who want (not just can, but want) to play that kind of pre-planned let's break it wide open game of 40k?
I can't speak for my fellow order players, but over on the Order forum there seems to be movement in that direction. Two recently non-lunar players want on the moon in response to taunting from Chaos players. I generously yielded my lunar slot. (Aren't I nice?)
What say, Order players? Do we have five who want to play just for fun, and who think fun is doing one's best against the enemy's best?
I believe Derek and Chase are quite correct in asking players to field armies that are fun to play against. It's just that some people have different ideas of what is fun. It would be nice to get similar sorts of players together. Are all the gung ho crazies really drawn to play Chaos?