Battleground Games Forum
Games Workshop => Warhammer 40K => Topic started by: Battleground on March 16, 2011, 04:19:40 PM
-
Hi everyone!
We are now post-PAX and I told myself that I was going to launch into work on this year's Apocalypse Megabattle as soon as we were past that milestone. I will earnestly begin work on the two new satellite tables sometime next week. Here is a diagram of the approximate layout of the tables themselves and the projected theme for each table. The main table (City & Environs) will be much the same as last year, as will the Moon and Sewer tables. I do plan to add some additional changes to them, but they should be somewhat similar to the 2010 Megabattle in theme and general layout. I will be looking for help in building new buildings and structures for all of those tables, especially the moon and sewer tables which could use more terrain features. The tables will also require some touching up from the damage they have accrued over the past year.
I have a pretty clear idea of what I want the Ice Cap and Wasteland tables to look like, so I'll be starting work on those table myself and requesting aid as needed.
I have attached an image below of the general layout and player areas. You'll notice there is room for 60 players among the tables. Twenty for the main and ten on each of the four satellite tables.
What I am looking for in this thread is constructive ideas on how the tables might interact with one another. We have tried to accomplish this in the past but it has never functioned to my satisfaction. For example, last year there were guns on the moon table that would be able to fire down on the planet surface if a player had them in their control. I don't think this ever actually happened. If it did, it might have been once and with no real consequence.
This thread should simply be an idea pool, not a place for board members to troll. I will delete any irrelevant post, so please don't make me have to waste my time. Thanks in advance!
(http://www.battlegroundgames.com/images/megabattle2011/megabattle2011_tabledimensions.jpg)
-
I think it would be cool like we use a "webgate" in the center table maybe after you cap objectives so as you turn on the webgate you can use it and then thus warp to a other table deep strike. This would be hard to do because of the mass of people on the city table.
OH I CAN'T WAIT FOR THE SNOW TABLE OMG!
-
1.) I definitely think that it would be a great idea if there were access points between the sewer and city tables where (infantry) units could use to go between the two tables. The access points could be in no-man's land for each table.
2.) a Defense Laser can start in no man's land, and fire every game turn down on any table but the sewers. To establish who fires the gun (which maybe we can make indestructible) it can be whichever (non vehicle, non monstrous creature) model is in base contact with the designated "fire control" point. If both sides have a model in contact, then dice off as the opponents fight over the controls.
Nothing really appropriate comes to mind for the wasteland and icecaps -- maybe they can just operate under different rules? I.E. the battle over the icecaps is being fought during a snowstorm and so all models make difficult terrain tests to move, nightfight rules are in effect.
-
One idea is you could have the 4 smaller tables all have a certain objective or goal that the team must try to hold or complete at the end of each turn. If you complete or control that certain objective on the mini table you give your team on the main table a certain advantage for the upcoming turn. On the main table they would have the "master objective". whoever completes this master objective would win the day!
For example, on the Moon board the objective could be to take control of the majority of a few control towers. Whoever owns the most control towers allow their team on the main table to drop a couple extra templates, moon nukes!
-
This kinda builds on Dissimulations idea of objectives. The most fun I have had playing apoc have been successes on one table granting bonuses to the entire battle. For example you can have battle wide goals of the first super heavy destroyed or the first character killed or first demon lord/titan kill etc etc. Once a goal is achieved the person shouts it and the appropriate side gets a bonus such as if a general is killed than an entire side gets fearless for a turn etc. This can also branch to individuals such as first person to kill a squad gets an orbital bombardment anywhere on any table. All major events should effect the overall battle.
Another thing you can do is emergency withdraw from one table to another. Once per turn a side can withdraw a unit to an area in the battle that they are needed most.
Anything that connects the tables in my opinion should feel like they are orders from the highest of authorities to try and turn the tide of battle.
-
I'll be the wet blanket.
I don't think going from one table to the next is a good idea. Having a player have to split their attention will slow things down for an already huge game.
Having the side tables affecting the big table is probably the easiest mechanic as the games will be going faster on those tables by default.
-
I agree with Rich. With each table on their own turn schedule, it would be impossible to fairly move from table to table.
I think increasing the ease in which a player uses table-specific abilities is the best place to start.
-
There was a White Dwarf article about 2 years ago that had an Apoc battle report that involved table interractions like controlling a moon laser to drop stuff on the planet. I think there were more interractions, but I don't remember. I'll see if I can find the issue on my shelf.
-
For the wasteland table you could have a "Michael Bay" (couldnt think of anything else to name it atm) rocket that could be fired by the controlling side on turn X, which when launched would land on a peice of impassible terrain on the ice table(the players from the same side on ice table would then gain control of the rocket), melting it turning it into dangerous terrain. This would allow the wasteland table to fight for an objective (good) and help out their side on another table allowing for them to remove what will hopefully be a large peice of impassible terrain allowing for a flank to open up.
-
I'll be the wet blanket.
I don't think going from one table to the next is a good idea. Having a player have to split their attention will slow things down for an already huge game.
Having the side tables affecting the big table is probably the easiest mechanic as the games will be going faster on those tables by default.
Not fair! I was going to be the wet blanket!
I can see a standard approach to handling all bombardment interactions. If at the end of a given turn some set of objectives is controlled by a given side on a given table, they enable the table captain of another table to do this or that thing which would play as a stratagem. Simple enough.
I would limit it somewhat. I once attended a Dakka Dakka battle where the opposition cleanly won the war in outer space and started orbital bombarding the heck out of one table. Not fun being thoroughly clobbered and there being nothing one could do about it. Some interactions, sure, but in moderation.
Moving units from one table to another could be done. I could see interactions between the sewer and city tables especially. Perhaps moves might only be allowed between those two tables. Perhaps if a unit is going to move, it must be unengaged and adjacent to the 'tunnel' exit. If there is no room to place the unit on the other table, the movement would either be blocked or one might come up with inter table assault rules.
Mind you, I am not a big fan of moving units from one table to another. I don't want one player splitting his attention between two tables. At the Dakka Dakka battle, the rule was that a player who moved stuff between tables gave up all control of the unit moved to the other table. One of the players on the new table took over control of the unit. Dakka Dakka also held all their tables in sync time and phase wise. If it was movement phase of turn 3 order on one table, so it was on all tables. This made gates between tables simpler. If each table has its own clock (which I really want as I don't like all tables being slaved to the slowest table) then a unit which leaves one table might not arrive at its destination until the next movement phase for that side on the destination table.
Clumsy. Complicated. However, in the Dakka Dakka battle, the table that got nuked from orbit was strongly reinforced by gate from another table. This turned out to be decisive.
Movement between tables might be tried on one pair of tables as an experiment? Sewer / City seems the obvious pair to try it on?
I'll suggest that the bigger the table, the slower play is apt to be. I note that a lot of the early suggestions here give the side tables an opportunity to make life on the big table more complicated. Some thought might be given to not making things too too complicated on the big table. I think in 2010 the big table only got to turn 3 or 4, while on the Moon Order got essentially wiped out on turn 5 so Chaos unofficially fought each other for a while.
Just for the big table, you might consider a rule that units must stay in or near their own deployment zone. Some of the delays in 2009 were due to players that needed to be in several different places at the same time after bringing units onto the table far from their army's original deployment zone. This resulted in a lot of hurry up and wait. Last year demonstrated that we could play six turns with 10 players on 3 tables, but could not do so with 20 players on 6 tables. We might consider long and hard how to simplify the lives of the 20 on the six. (The simplest suggestion might be to break the six tables into three and three. Keeping the complexity level of the special table rules on the big table comes next. Special command and control rules to keep all members of a given army within a table or two of their deployment zone might be another.)
-
I am going to be the opposite of the wet blanket. I love chaotic craziness at the megabattle. so :P to people who want it easy.
Here is some confusion for the battle. (especially for the Moon, Mua ha ha!)
A. Tunnels between sewer and city
B. Web-way between wasteland and ice cap
C. "Moon of chaos" (aka The big Switcheroo) once per game, roll d6 from turn 2 on, on 4+ it happens, +1 to roll on subsequent turns.
1. place large blast template on center of moon table.
2. Scatter 6d6.
3. any unit(s) with a model touching the blast template is(are) swept up in the warp.
4. roll 1d6; 1-3 city, 4 sewer, 5 icecap, 6 wasteland.
5. Repeat #1 and 2, but on selected planet location.
6. Units swept up into the warp from the Moon scatter from center point of template, with no mishaps making room for each other as best they can.
7. any unit(s) originally from second location that has at least one model in contact with template on second planetary location is removed from table as per #3, and deep-strikes from location that the template first scattered to on moon.
8. Mayhem ensues.
-
AND, if once per game is not enough, instead of leaving, the moon template can stay where it is and scatter 2d6 at the beginning of each turn. The fluff could be that it's a malfunctioning vortex grenade. ;D
-
I am going to be the opposite of the wet blanket. I love chaotic craziness at the megabattle. so :P to people who want it easy.
Here is some confusion for the battle. (especially for the Moon, Mua ha ha!)
A. Tunnels between sewer and city
B. Web-way between wasteland and ice cap
C. "Moon of chaos" (aka The big Switcheroo) once per game, roll d6 from turn 2 on, on 4+ it happens, +1 to roll on subsequent turns.
1. place large blast template on center of moon table.
2. Scatter 6d6.
3. any unit(s) with a model touching the blast template is(are) swept up in the warp.
4. roll 1d6; 1-3 city, 4 sewer, 5 icecap, 6 wasteland.
5. Repeat #1 and 2, but on selected planet location.
6. Units swept up into the warp from the Moon scatter from center point of template, with no mishaps making room for each other as best they can.
7. any unit(s) originally from second location that has at least one model in contact with template on second planetary location is removed from table as per #3, and deep-strikes from location that the template first scattered to on moon.
8. Mayhem ensues.
I wouldn't want to touch this with a 6 foot measuring tape, and I don't think you want to have something this random effecting multiple tables. However, if you could find 10 players who like craziness I could see one table being crazy.
I might suggest using a variation on the deep strike accident game mechanic. There is a malfunctioning warp gate that is the main objective of the table. If a psycher gets to the objective, one might try to use it in more or less controlled fashion. Getting there would mean running a gauntlet of random warp circles that tend to appear at random near the objective. If any model gets touched by said templet the effect might be similar to a deep strike accident. The possibilities might include the unit getting lost and gone forever in the warp, the unit gets to deep strike wherever it wants, unit gets to deep strike wherever the opposition wants, unit transports to random place on table, unit transports to the objective, and unit is stuck in the warp for a turn, roll again next turn.
Feel free to mix and match.
Again, if such a table existed, I would avoid it, but it is entirely possible that there might be 10 nutso crazy folk who would want to try it. Make it hard to get to the gate, but have the gate be very useful if a unit actually gets there.
But it might be best to limit such randomness to a single table, and the players know what they are getting into.
-
I suggest only helmeted models can be used on the moon( same for airtight vehicles)
-
what about daemons?
-
what about daemons?
What *about* Daemons? :P
Ha! So, the 5th Edition Hardcover rulebook has this covered. Page 270, Evacuation mission.
Imperial Guardsmen might be issued rebreathers when fighting in a near or total vacuum, while races such as Orks are so hardy it can be imagined that they can go several hours in such conditions with no ill effects.
Low gravity and Vacuum special rules make things crazy interesting, perfect for the moon tables...
-
Ok, so if people don't like my crazy moon idea, how about this.
Change the Vortex Grenade so that any unit taken out by it deep strikes on a different table, chosen at random, then scatters 6d6 from the center of that table.
-
ehhh we shouldn't have anything that moves a player in any sense from one table to another. Its always a problem every year trying to get a players to be available to deal with his army on various parts of a table in general. Add that the fact that the smaller tables in general will move along quicker and you have a guy trying to roll armor saves on one table and attempt to do his army movement on another table.
I think global affects that can go from table to table, based on objectives held or major terrain effects. For instance the moon laser shooting to the main table. Or if a super heavy goes apocalyptic on the main table maybe all movement in the caverns will be difficult due to tremors and falling debris from the explosion above.
-
I suggest only helmeted models can be used on the moon( same for airtight vehicles)
Cool and flavorful idea. I'd like it in a lot of ways. One thing to consider.
Last year, in an ad-lib last moment decision, it was decided that Emperor Titans belonged on the moon as the other tables had too much terrain.
But I'm thinking there should be at least one table with no limits on the amount of points spent on super-heavies. It would have to be a table suitable for Emperors, meaning it would either have little terrain or terrain that collapses easily if something really big steps on it. If that table is the moon table, armies without helmets might not be able to go super heavy crazy.
Perhaps the ice or wasteland table will also be flat enough...
-
If we could have rules for super heavies sliding on ice when they firing their primary guns.... :D
-
Last year, in an ad-lib last moment decision, it was decided that Emperor Titans belonged on the moon as the other tables had too much terrain.
But I'm thinking there should be at least one table with no limits on the amount of points spent on super-heavies. It would have to be a table suitable for Emperors, meaning it would either have little terrain or terrain that collapses easily if something really big steps on it.
I feel terrible that we had to throw the Emperors on the Moon table last year. It screwed with too much in my opinion.
Personally, I hate the idea (and power level) of the Emperor titan.
I promise that there will be a "no holds barred" table this year that is 100% completely open ended. This will be the only table that allows Emperors if I have things my way.
Sometime soon (hopefully within 2 weeks of this posting) Derek and I will open registration and have the "point restrictions" for the 5 tables.
The Megabattle is 2.5 months away... which is to say, "it's here."
-
I feel terrible that we had to throw the Emperors on the Moon table last year. It screwed with too much in my opinion.
Personally, I hate the idea (and power level) of the Emperor titan.
I promise that there will be a "no holds barred" table this year that is 100% completely open ended. This will be the only table that allows Emperors if I have things my way.
Sometime soon (hopefully within 2 weeks of this posting) Derek and I will open registration and have the "point restrictions" for the 5 tables.
The Megabattle is 2.5 months away... which is to say, "it's here."
My wargaming side agrees that Emperors are problematic. My modeling side thinks the Red Emperor was cool, and it would be a shame if he can't make another appearance. Alas, I suspect that the no holds barred table will have both war game focused players and model builders. Hopefully there will be both sorts on both sides of the table.
So long as the book rule about guns not firing below 45 degrees from horizontal is enforced, going up against an Emperor or other big titans might not be quite so bad. If one wants to tone down big titans some, don't allow every big weapon slot to fire a D template. An Emperor's six carapace weapons have generally turned into six d templates a turn. Might be a bit much.
Last year, excepting the four players who spent every point on big models (including the two emperors), I believe giving everyone else enough points for two baneblades worth of super-heavies would have covered everyone else's lists. My recommendation would be a no holds barred table, a couple of two baneblade tables, a one baneblade table, and a no super heavy table. The no holds barred table would have to be fairly flat for potential Emperors. The cavern table makes the most sense as a no superheavy table.
You might not want to lock which table will have how much superheavy until after the players start registering. When people register, along with asking a shirt size, ask how many points of super-heavies they intend to field, or how many points of super-heavies they would be comfortable fighting. If lots of folks want lots of super-heavies, you might adjust table limits to fit. If more folk want a more codex driven force, again, adjust to fit.
-
So much fear of the Emperor Class titans even though the main game plan on that table was just to neutralize one while the other ran roughshod over the opposition's armies.
I'll just mention once that tying up / neutralizing even an emperor class titan (or any titan) is easy if people are willing to work together. 2 years in a row a couple smaller models combined with team work helped take down something much bigger and more expensive than it.
I do like the idea of a more "iron man" table where as people can just not whine. Although warhounds and other "lesser" titans and daemons shouldn't be restricted from the main table. It adds a lot to the scale of the battle.
I'm pretty sure what made the moon table what it was last year wasn't so much the Emperors but the rumor mill that made people quiver.
-
I AGREE WITH RON'S IDEAS
-
I feel that what cannot happen is that it turns into 5 separate games on 5 separate tables. Otherwise it shouldn't be called a Megabattle. To prevent that there must be dynamic ways that the tables interact and it should include being able to move between tables. I understand that it will be confusing, but I feel the Megabattle NEEDS to be over the top, that's what makes it the amazing event it is.
-
I feel that what cannot happen is that it turns into 5 separate games on 5 separate tables. Otherwise it shouldn't be called a Megabattle. To prevent that there must be dynamic ways that the tables interact and it should include being able to move between tables. I understand that it will be confusing, but I feel the Megabattle NEEDS to be over the top, that's what makes it the amazing event it is.
There is a difference between controlled chaos and just plain confusing. I think that movement from one table to the next would not only result in a lot of people running into each other, But a lot of dropped models. I agree with the other people in this thread that think movement from table to table is just out of the question.
-
I feel that what cannot happen is that it turns into 5 separate games on 5 separate tables. Otherwise it shouldn't be called a Megabattle. To prevent that there must be dynamic ways that the tables interact and it should include being able to move between tables.
Actually, dynamic interactions do not necessitate moving between tables.
There can be tables with objectives. If you hold the objectives uncontested, you get to do something to another table / team / player. For example, if you hold an objective on one table, perhaps you can launch an orbital bombardment at any other table. Or an objective allowing another table's unit to reinforce back up to full. Stuff like that, fun but not ridiculous to track.
-
What about rolling to see if a unit freezes or dies of heat exhauston each turn? That would be awesome/horrible.
-
ehhh we shouldn't have anything that moves a player in any sense from one table to another. Its always a problem every year trying to get a players to be available to deal with his army on various parts of a table in general. Add that the fact that the smaller tables in general will move along quicker and you have a guy trying to roll armor saves on one table and attempt to do his army movement on another table.
I think global affects that can go from table to table, based on objectives held or major terrain effects. For instance the moon laser shooting to the main table. Or if a super heavy goes apocalyptic on the main table maybe all movement in the caverns will be difficult due to tremors and falling debris from the explosion above.
off topic, but dude, check your facebook messages.
-
So much fear of the Emperor Class titans even though the main game plan on that table was just to neutralize one while the other ran roughshod over the opposition's armies.
I'll just mention once that tying up / neutralizing even an emperor class titan (or any titan) is easy if people are willing to work together. 2 years in a row a couple smaller models combined with team work helped take down something much bigger and more expensive than it.
I do like the idea of a more "iron man" table where as people can just not whine. Although war-hounds and other "lesser" titans and daemons shouldn't be restricted from the main table. It adds a lot to the scale of the battle.
I'm pretty sure what made the moon table what it was last year wasn't so much the Emperors but the rumor mill that made people quiver.
Tis hard to give my view of the moon table while avoiding any hypothetical prohibition on whining. I think I can agree with what was said above, though. Chaos had veteran players, knew what they were up against, planned for it, and had the stratagems and models to implement the plan. As I'd anticipate nothing less next time around, Order players intending to go to this year's no holds barred table might take note.
I figure the main table ought to allow each army enough superheavy points for a couple of baneblades. I'm concerned that the big table is going to play slowly again. While some interaction between tables is good, minimizing confusion and bookkeeping seems a worthy goal, and I wouldn't focus too much of the interaction on the main table.
We also ought to minimize the number of sanity points lost by Chase. Just getting 60 players with 4000 points each implies 'over the top' and 'wild and crazy' enough. I'd suggest 'some semblance of sanity' might also be a worthy goal.
-
I feel that what cannot happen is that it turns into 5 separate games on 5 separate tables. Otherwise it shouldn't be called a Megabattle. To prevent that there must be dynamic ways that the tables interact and it should include being able to move between tables.
Actually, dynamic interactions do not necessitate moving between tables.
There can be tables with objectives. If you hold the objectives uncontested, you get to do something to another table / team / player. For example, if you hold an objective on one table, perhaps you can launch an orbital bombardment at any other table. Or an objective allowing another table's unit to reinforce back up to full. Stuff like that, fun but not ridiculous to track.
This is how we handled things last year, although I can't remember if it ever ended up happening or not.
I would expect to see more of this type of thing this year. If anyone has any great ideas, make a thread about it.
-
Some good things going on here. Using the rules out of the book for some of the more inhospitible climates works. But I don't think having a "must where helmet" type rule is fair, orks can figure out how to breath in space, we'll take it as given.
It'll be easy to affect the main table based on the smaller tables but not vice versa, as the large table is often slower. If the smaller tables fly by we can track effects for up coming planet turns. Heading the other way needlessly slows down the smaller tables.
If we have an attack system to bombard the main planet on the moon, fair play, but. It should be prepositioned. each side picks a target for each barrage, for each turn, the if they control the mechanism the shot goes off, and scatters appropriately. We can then track the turns on the moon as normal, (they'll be quicker), and just play the effects on the relevant tables as we go along. For example, Firing mechanism controlled in Turn 2 by Chaos. Planet side table 1st shooting phase. Incoming on Chaos target for turn 3.
Things we need to be aware of, most armies have flyers that transport troops or other things, this effectively removes any ability to rest people to only their deployment zone. So just be prepared and have the team able to watch your units and roll saves\leadership if you are going to be away from your units.
That's all from me, really looking forward to this years event, we'll see if Disorder can actually win this year rather than claiming victory from a rounding error :)
Cheers,
Alan
-
O you cheeky brit.....
-
There was a White Dwarf article about 2 years ago that had an Apoc battle report that involved table interractions like controlling a moon laser to drop stuff on the planet. I think there were more interractions, but I don't remember. I'll see if I can find the issue on my shelf.
I am interested in this, Sean. Please send me an email if you are able to find the article.
-
The largest issue with transporting units / models from table to table is that the rate of play on each is independent. This is a pretty complex issue, especially if people start gaming around it (which happens pretty much not at all at the Megabattle and is something I'll never understand).
Solving other issues with respect to moving units from table to table is easy enough (although not very fun).
What I would like to see presented are not so much the actual ideas for WHAT WILL happen but ideas for HOW whatever will happen.
Last year players were responsible for reporting certain aspects of the game to me or Derek. This did not happen and in several cases we were told about it after an effect should have taken place. Also, much of the time Derek or myself will be focusing on one area of one table and, for that time period, will not have any real idea what is going on elsewhere. This will be more difficult to handle this year with two more tables.
An easy, reliable, consistent, and effective method of reporting when different things have happened or should happen would be nice. This should be easy enough this year, especially if we are better prepared. After that is taken care of we need a very easy, universally understood way of dealing with HOW things that effect other tables will happen (and when they will happen).
In my opinion, everything that effects one table or another should take place the the start of the next round on that table. Even this is pretty clunky and requires at least 10 people to stop what they are doing, give me their attention, and focus on something else for 30-60 seconds.
So, HOW should all of "this" happen. What is a seamless way to handle the inter-table effects?
-
Considering the nature of the game I am unsure if a seemless way is possible. Only a couple things pop into mind like table "captains" who do the reporting or a physical scoreboard noting who controls what.
On the captain side of it, they could just notify you or another referee when the game turn ticks over for a quick review. While this may sound tedious, just remember that every table will be at a different pace. So if moon will shoot the laser, you could probably have it happen on the planet their following turm. Same with the other side tables.
Having the surface interact with the other tables is more problematic as their pace will be slower than the rest of the game. I supose it could work the same way as the effect is produced next player turn after a referee is notified by one of the captains.
-
So, HOW should all of "this" happen. What is a seamless way to handle the inter-table effects?
Perhaps each table should have a box on it, in which notes can be placed specifying interactions. Rather than a box, one might give it to your own team's table captain.
At the end of a player turn on one table, if the team whose turn ended has sole control of some set of objectives, they get to put a note in another tables's box. This note might quote a well defined game mechanic such as as Orbital Bombardment. If the cross table effect isn't a well known game mechanic, it would be up to Derek and Chase to have clearly defined it before hand.
At the start of every shooting phase, the side whose turn it is gets to look through the box for notes that justify extra explosions.
The above idea in its simplest form does not try to keep game time in synch. One might also specify on the note what turn the action ought to occur on. Thus, a note might say "From Moon table to Main table, Orbital Bombardment, arrives shooting phase turn 3.
This would become problematic if a slow table tries to bombard a fast table, or possibly vica versa. If a fast table bombards a slow table on turn six, and the slow table never gets to turn six, the bombardment might just never be played. If a slow table bombards a fast table, a note saying bombard on turn 4 might not be read until turn 5. If this is the case, perhaps the projectile was just slow, and would land a little late.
It might be simpler not to specify the turn on arrival, but just execute the bombardment on the next appropriate shooting phase.
The above example is fixed purely on bombardment. There could be other forms of interaction that might best be kept to a minimum. I'd suggest that the claiming of objectives always take place at the end of a player's turn. Write a note. Put it in the other table's in box. The execution would take place on an appropriate phase.
If a unit is moved to another table, it would appear on the next movement phase for the correct side on the other table. If the interaction is related to shooting, it would take place in the next shooting phase for the correct side on the other table. If there is an enemy unit within assault range of a portal, we might or might not allow a unit to enter a table on the assault phase.
But I don't really like players controlling units on two tables. I'd suggest using the Dakka Dakka rule, that if a unit moves to another table, the sending player gives up all control over the unit. A player on the new table becomes responsible for playing the unit.
If we move units between tables this year, I suggest that we allow a very limited number of gates. Let's do it on a trial basis. For example, there might be a few places where one might move between the sewer and city tables, but no warp portals that allow transfer from any portal to any other portal.
I'd also suggest that if we have gates between tables, they might come in different sizes. Some might allow infantry, cavalry, bikes and beasts only, some might allow tanks and transports as well, while few if any gates are big enough for superheavies or gargantuan creatures.
This is just an attempt to make things as simple and idiot resistant as possible. I could do without moving units between tables at all. I could go with bombardment only interactions.
-
I like those ideas, Bob.
-
As someone with a large flier with transport ablties I think moving units onto a seperate table us a bad idea. I have a hard enough time moving fliers on one table let alone 2 and constantly move back and forth between tables us a migraine waiting to happen.
-
if we allow people to move models from one table to another we are going to end up with one side or another sending as many troops to one table as possible destroying the whole point of putting even numbers of players on each table.
-
I just thought of something awesome for the ice table. Any vehicle with an armor value(does NOT apply to walkers) shifts d3 inches back after it fires it's main weapon. Main weapon would be defined as any weapon that exceeds strength 5. If your tank hits another vehicle during this move damage will be treated like a ramming attack.
Another possibility for the ice table is that vehicles who go flat out will move an extra d6 inches in a random direction ( use the warmahordes template for this). This extra movement can result in a tank shock or ramming attack as per normal rules
-
That's a neat idea Moosifer, but I think it might wind up as a whole mess of bookkeeping on a day we probably want to keep said bookkeeping to a minimum. Plus I'm not sure the "move back d3" would really amount to much.
Although the thought of ork trukks with reinforced rams moving with turbo boostas and the ice fields to annihilate land raiders (due to how far they've moved) makes me giggle a bit.
-
Another possibility for the ice table is that vehicles who go flat out will move an extra d6 inches in a random direction ( use the warmahordes template for this). This extra movement can result in a tank shock or ramming attack as per normal rules
If only we had some kind of 6 sided device we used to give a random direction, maybe to show something that scatters.
I do like the idea though, moving flat out and then moving in a random direction. I also think that the vehicle should then face the direction in was moved in, or at least have some sort of facing changed. A simple rule, but one that really makes the environment match the gameplay.
-
Another possibility for the ice table is that vehicles who go flat out will move an extra d6 inches in a random direction ( use the warmahordes template for this). This extra movement can result in a tank shock or ramming attack as per normal rules
If only we had some kind of 6 sided device we used to give a random direction, maybe to show something that scatters.
I do like the idea though, moving flat out and then moving in a random direction. I also think that the vehicle should then face the direction in was moved in, or at least have some sort of facing changed. A simple rule, but one that really makes the environment match the gameplay.
Sims, the only reason I suggested the warmahordes template is that there is little in the way of confusion about the angle of where the scatter goes. It has the direction it was going, and 5 other directions.
-
I'd recommend against small model-based rules. The megabattle can be confusing and time consuming enough, no need to add in scattering for all vehicles. I do think that is really cool, though. Especially the shooting rule.
I'd stick to table-wide static effects that do not generate die rolls or once per turn global effects.
-
The megabattle can be confusing and time consuming enough, no need to add in scattering for all vehicles. I do think that is really cool, though. Especially the shooting rule.
I'd stick to table-wide static effects that do not generate die rolls or once per turn global effects.
This.
-
Another possibility for the ice table is that vehicles who go flat out will move an extra d6 inches in a random direction ( use the warmahordes template for this). This extra movement can result in a tank shock or ramming attack as per normal rules
If only we had some kind of 6 sided device we used to give a random direction, maybe to show something that scatters.
I do like the idea though, moving flat out and then moving in a random direction. I also think that the vehicle should then face the direction in was moved in, or at least have some sort of facing changed. A simple rule, but one that really makes the environment match the gameplay.
Sims, the only reason I suggested the warmahordes template is that there is little in the way of confusion about the angle of where the scatter goes. It has the direction it was going, and 5 other directions.
Fair enough. If someone rolls argues about the angle of a die rolled close to the model and with a max of 6 inches, though, I believe they should be booted out the door.
-
Cool idea. On the ice table you could have a few glaciers that are free floating. The glaciers could scatter 1d6 or 1d3 or something every turn.
Whether interfering models die or just move out of the way is up in the air, but I think that a dynamic landscape would be totally awesome.
-
I think scattering ice would be a bit of a nightmare to actualy deal with. either you have only a few and it barely effect the game or there are alot of them and it takes up a ton of time. I think more global effects perhaps ones triggered or preset.
Perhaps on the ice table the battle starts during a blizzard and everyone uses a weaker version of the night fight rules and each turn a single die is rolled by one of the team captains and on say 3+ the storm ends.
Or mabye a super heavy going critical on the main table causes the sewer table to treat open terrain as difficult for the next turn.
another main table sewer idea add a water treatment plant to the main table that if controlled by one side grants the captain of that side on the sewer table a single stratigic asset or something similar.
there was some talk of a waygate portal whail I am against moveing models from one table to another it would be fine if there where two gates mabye one in the city and one in the wasteland the side that controls the city one grants there side on the wasteland table one use of the replacements asset that is automaticly successful but is limited to a single unit that could fit through the gate and must come through the gate.
it really depends on how many interactions we want between tables. we could set it up so that 4 of the 6 objectives on the main table cause effects on each of the other tables and each outer table has one objective that effects the main table and one that effects one other table and each table could have one effect that is local to that table such as the night fighting storm though that might be too many effects at once.
-
Josh, I want you to talk to Derek about all of that. Come up with tons of similar ideas, try to get them on "paper" (post them here or email them to me). ChaseLaq@gmail.com
I like some of those ideas a lot. I want more.
I am about as creative as... I dunno, something that's not creative.
-
Your post just really excited me. I really like those ideas!!
-
If at the start of there second or third turn one side or the other controls a command center on the main table (one of the objectives in no mans land in theory) they can remotely access the orbital weaponry on the moon useing it to bombard the area (apocalyptic barrage) the power of the attack dependent on how many of the moons towers are still standing at that moment. After the third turn ends the rotation of the planet relitive to the moon carries it out of sync removeing the possiblity of further barrages.
during the 4th wasteland turn the moon is in sync with the area allowing a similar barrage.
this could encourage player based table interactions perhaps the city general asking the moon commander on his side to try and take down some of the towers before the opposeing side fires...but what about the poor wasteland where they control that station they may want as many towers active as possible for there own shot at the blast.
-
Librarian's idea for moon to planet interaction is plausible. I've been mulling a similar idea for planet to planet interaction, the Inter Table Ballistic Missile (ITBM). There are some strategic assets that might plausibly be mounted on a warhead. These might include vortex grenade, anti plant barrage, blind barrage, and orbital bombardment. As either a feature of a table or a strategic asset, there might be silos on certain tables that can launch strategic assets, assuming the silos haven't been captured or destroyed first. I might suggest that two or three ITBMs might be bought as a single strategic asset, but all of them might not be launched as the other side will be trying to destroy the launchers.
ITBMs might not be able to target their own launch table, and might not have the range to reach the moon.
There was a discussion on whether there should only be one set of strategic assets per side as per book, rather than one set of assets per side per table. This could be the difference between 2 flank marches and 10. The argument against was that there are more players on a side than there are assets. One wants everyone to have a shot at a decent asset. There are 24 non-banned assets in the base rules, with several more per army in Reload. The Reload assets are quite sexy, and should not be overlooked. Also, most of the assets in the base book are not controversial. Most of them might be allowed twice.
Creating a few additional inter table assets might be interesting. Instead of putting an inter table asset objective in no man's land and fighting over it, if a player selects an inter table asset it would be placed in his own deployment zone, and might be easier to defend.
Last year, when it became clear that the opposition was going to take the lunar launch control building, we blew away the launch control building. I suspect this will happen a lot if inter table stuff is located in no-man's land. Having players buy an inter table asset so they might place it somewhere defendable might be worth considering.
I might suggest that a tunnel between the sewer and city tables might be a plausible inter table asset.
I also suggested that on the ice table, ice skates might be a plausible asset, but no one seemed to take me seriously.
-
I like the ITBM idea and taking it as an asset.
If someone would like to write them up and send them to me that would be cool.
-
What about having table-specific specail assets? for example the ice table is slippery and cold, but we could give players an asset which their army is immune to the cold and/or sliding around.
-
I like the ITBM idea and taking it as an asset.
If someone would like to write them up and send them to me that would be cool.
I'll give it a shot...