Kill point system n' Guard

[draconis]

It sucks... I just realized that your opponent gets two points per command squad (three if you put a Commissar in it).

Considering we need at least three command squads...

Just picture it. In an 1800pt army, a Death Wing army Will have around 6 units. Assuming they deepstrike, they deepstrike three units near each command squad and pretty much frak it up. The other three units frak up three units of guardsmen... thats 9 kill points straight off the bat

If they're a canny player then they'll place their drops so that they get cover saves from return AP2 fire (eg lascannon, melta n plasma fire) too...

Admittedly this will only happen in one in three games, but it pretty much means that you're guaranteed to lose one in three... I reckon that's a bit rough

Comments?

[ash]

In these types of games if you can take Combat Squads DON'T!
You will get absolutely fragged!

This is just an assumption as I would never be that stupid with my Angel's (especially against Black Templars)....

The new scenarios although fine if you are playing a friendly game or are playing marines or chaos would not be suitable for more competitive play for the afore mentioned reasons.

[Disco Stu]

Why does every game have to be a competitive tournament game? Has everyone forgotten the simple joy of just PLAYING a game?

[alex]

well said stu,
the reason bloodbowl is my favourite game is that it is always fun, sometimes 40k and warhammer can be a bit of a chore if you are behind the 8ball in army selection, or faced with a mission your army is poorly suited for. (e.g. have you ever tryied to DEFEND using a tyranid army, e.g. saboutage, bunker assault etc).

+1 vote for just playing for fun most of the time.

Guard are going to get hammered by everyone all the time anyway, they are only humans with flashlights, lol.

[ash]

Not everyone always plays competitive (dont know many who do) I was just saying the new scenario system is not beneficial at all to tournament play. 2 of the 3 scenarios almost always end in a draw which is not helpful in deciding a winner at a tournament if everyone has the same battle point scores.

[Disco Stu]

Fair enough, that's the one section of the rule book I haven't looked at yet. The problem is most people tool their army to win even in a friendly game, nobody seems to try odd combinations or just plain silly army compositions just for a chuckle any more. Everything is geared towards tournament play. That's what I liked the most about playing at Fraser's old shop, we just played for shits and giggles.

[alex]

Sept 2, 2008 21:09:19 GMT 9.5 @ash said:

Not everyone always plays competitive (dont know many who do) I was just saying the new scenario system is not beneficial at all to tournament play. 2 of the 3 scenarios almost always end in a draw which is not helpful in deciding a winner at a tournament if everyone has the same battle point scores.

well ash you are tops at making creative ideas, no reason why you can't completely design your own missions scenarios etc for use in your tournament!

I used to play a ww2 skirmish game called Landser, its kinda halfway between 40k and Necromunda in scale, usually you had under your control one or two units of 10 men. It had reactive fire (overwatch), different 'to hit' rolls for different weapons at different ranges, more advanced rules for cover, pinning, psychology etc.
But the main thing I thought was really freaking cool about it was the way my mate would design the victory conditions. There would be multiple sources of victory points in each game. For example terrain features would be each worth a point or two, for prominant buildings hills etc, you would get points for oposing units routed or reduced, for taking out tanks, for taking prisoners, capturing objectives like radio lines, bridges etc and in some cases the two forces could be entering into a firefight in an area with the enemy, and they would each have differnt objectives unknown to the other side, for example the allies might be desperate for intelligence and be ordered to take a prisoner, the axis might be trying to clear a certain building that they needed to get out a radio signal etc.
Its much less likely to end in a draw if there are 10 or 20 ways in the game in which you can earn some victory points, it also adds interest, variability and fun to the games, rather than the typical advance, shoot assault tally up kill points way that lots of GW games transpire.

Anyway, in comparison 40k objectives can be rather lame, though like stu I haven't looked at that part of the new rulebook (I've actually only just given it a skim read), but hey if you don't like the scenarios make your own!

[Disco Stu]

I was at a tournie at my local club at the beginning of the year and every table had a different scenario with victory conditions and there was quite a few tables. The problem with 40k and wfb is that it's pretty much set up facing each other and then meet in the middle. Hopefully that's changed a bit now. I prefer objective based scenarios than victory point based ones.

[draconis]

Hmmm, don't recall starting this topic to see who did or didn't like to play tournaments... can we maybe try to stear it back on topic?

Sept 2, 2008 22:23:57 GMT 9.5 Disco Stu said:

The problem with 40k and wfb is that it's pretty much set up facing each other and then meet in the middle. Hopefully that's changed a bit now. I prefer objective based scenarios than victory point based ones.

Yep, changed quite a bit... with flanking moves and pretty much every two out of three games being objective based !

[ash]

There will be objectives in the tournaments but to add spice to it there is a certain secret objectives/stratagem idea ill be trying out.

Its similar to the old secret missions cards you used to get in older white dwarf magazines. I'll get more into it when I have worked more on the set but yes it will be something special to set the Renmark tournaments apart from the rest.

I have been working on it for a while and I have 6 already but I really need 10 or so so the opponent does not know what shenanigans you will be pulling.

But like I said, more on that later....

[Disco Stu]

The only place you'd use those points is in a competitive game like at a tournament though. In a friendly you'd just look at what's left and say "yeah I reckon you/I won". At least that's how I usually play my games.

[draconis]

Sept 2, 2008 22:36:49 GMT 9.5 Disco Stu said:

The only place you'd use those points is in a competitive game like at a tournament though. In a friendly you'd just look at what's left and say "yeah I reckon you/I won". At least that's how I usually play my games.

You realy don't like tournaments, do you ;D

[Disco Stu]

I actually like tournaments for the opportunity to play new people and see their armies, I'm not about the win at all costs mentality of some people.

[draconis]

Sept 2, 2008 22:48:20 GMT 9.5 Disco Stu said:

I actually like tournaments for the opportunity to play new people and see their armies, I'm not about the win at all costs mentality of some people.

Amen to that brother ;D

I go to get best painted n' sports awards

[Disco Stu]

I played an annihilation mission last night with orks v chaos and I can see where you are coming from because it was brought up about the guard in this mission type. However in the example you originally described just how much fun would said deathwing player have doing that? Me personally I'd probably be "Wow I totally kicked your arse, that was boring". I don't get a lot of enjoyment out of the game when I totally trounce someone, the close fought games are always the best and the ones you remember the most fondly. Besides annihilation based missions are boring anyways.

[majordodo]

I would also put forward, if commisars are worth 1 kill point. What happens when you're playign catachans and have to roll for "Oops, sorry sir."

[ash]

The enemy only gets points for units they kill themselves.

[majordodo]

Ah k, i read the first post then tuned out for the rest lol