|
|
Post by greenmtvince on Dec 30, 2007 19:30:43 GMT -5
Sean mentioned that there'd be a league starting at the end of January. I'm not sure if any of the details have been solidified or if anyone's volunteered to run it, but I figured I'd ask everyone else what they're interested in.
Is everyone into a competitive gaming format? If so any particular method to the madness? One interesting suggestion for league play that I saw on the interweb was a funky take on the escalation league where everyone started with 500 point armies. If you lost a game you added 100 points to your list (up to some maximum 1500 or 2000.) The winner is the person with the smallest army at the end of the league. Might be a fun twist on what's otherwise a series of tournament style gmies.
Alternately, is there anyone into doing a campaign format? Ben and I were talking about a 40K take on the WHFB Mighty Empires ruleset and tiles. The nice thing about the new Mighty Empires rules is that there's really a minimal amount of bookeeping, it keeps everyone gaming, and avoids some really lopsided engagements like 500 on 2000 battles. I did a small writeup that'd modify the ruleset to 40K and could post it. I could run the campaign, just would need some help painting up the tiles.
|
|
|
|
Post by FaithandFire on Dec 30, 2007 20:27:24 GMT -5
I'm game for either but the "smallest army wins" concept is new and would be a nice twist on the same old stuff. It is nice to have that upper limit so it is not quite as pitiful as when someone beats my 3000 point Sisters list with their 500 point army.
|
|
|
|
Post by deadlyflorist on Dec 30, 2007 23:22:48 GMT -5
I'd be down with either of those as well, though I think the hard part would be finding a night where everyone could be there, as for a few of us its a distance and we can't really stop down after work. I think the twist with smaller army lists could be intersting. Would we be useing diffrent missions, because thats what would give the small army lists a chance. Also, would it be one set list, or would you be able to change it for every night of gameing?
|
|
|
|
Post by greenmtvince on Dec 31, 2007 0:37:52 GMT -5
Well, now that we have the forum...
If we go with the competitive league, one of the things Danger Planet did when I played a league there was the opponents were randomly assigned in advance. Every person had 3 people they had to play and needed to play two "pickup games" against any other two players. All 5 games had to be accomplished by a certain date. Shortly after, there was a scheduled league final which was basically a tournament to sort out the final rankings. This may sort of go against the spirit of trying to get everyone together on a regular day for gaming, but it would definitely accomodate everyone.
If we go with a campaign, the Mighty Empire rules pretty much makes sure that no one is going to have to play 8 games to hold onto one tile in a given campaign turn. There's a couple ways we can work out player absenses. The simplest method is we set a gaming day like every Sunday, and if a player can't make it they get protected status. So while they can't be attacked they also aren't making any progress towards winning. The other way is everyone declares their actions to a campaign referee and the ref assigns the opponents for that turn. It's then up to the players to coordinate when the best time to play that game is.
Another thing you can do with the campaign to help people out is make a campaign turn 2 weeks long. It allows people to take a break from the campaign if they want to do a different game or no gaming at all. If people are feeling ambitious and want to get more campaign games in during a turn, there's rules for raiding actions which are bonus games. They give a small reward for players that want to game more, but not a major advantage over others. I've also got ways to work in Aeronautica Imperialis and Battlefleet Gothic as bonus games for players that wanted to try something different and link it into the campaign.
|
|
|
|
Post by deewalla on Dec 31, 2007 16:21:08 GMT -5
hmmmm, Smallest List = Winner. I like the concept, and if the conversion of Mighty Empires does go over easily then it should be a simple, quick, and fun start to 2008.
Perhaps the first "try" being a 2 week campaign. Then, seeing how it worked, how it bugged, or how everyone else loves it. Expand to Aeronotica/Gothic, more points.. etc etc.
I'm also thinking to reduce the cheese that might be so fondly looked at, (smaller = winner) that some percentage must be troops, Heavy/elite Selections vs Troop Selections might need to be set. I'm thinking of Rogue Trader Composition. (While we don't have many SM players so my example really isn't valid, I could see other races doing a similar min/max) Without a rule in place, we might see a lot of 2 minimum scout squads, then bulking up on Elites, Heavys, or taking that 1 Kitted out, Tooled up, 460 point HQ choice.
Plus it would bring a little character "forcing" all armies to have equal composition. We would get battles with your average foot soldier on the board, and not just 14 armor / 5 wound / 9 attack / 2+ Invulnerable beasts running around.
Just my thoughts, but then again, I've become a born again horde IG player as of late.
-Deewalla
H'Garian Command
|
|
|
|
Post by greenmtvince on Jan 1, 2008 13:17:37 GMT -5
Well if we go with the campaign, comp and points are out the window as the ME rules say you and your opponent decide on the size game you want to play. You could play as little as a combat patrol or as much as an Apocalypse game. While perhaps not the most realistic way of running things it reduces the amount of bookeeping and complicated rules.
With a competitive league, I'm a little leary of placing general comp requirements across all armies. Some armies' average foot soldiers are another's elites or heavy hitters (Blood Angels, Deathwing/Ravenwing, Armoured Company) and other armies allow you to take certain themed lists, but you have to load up on elites or fast attack (Eldar, Tau, New Orks.) I'm a little biased as well because I'd like to take a themed Tau list and know that at 1500 points I'm only at 20% troops. At 500 points until you hit 1000 you'll also really notice the difference between certain Armies' basic troops choices.
|
|
|
|
Post by droofus on Jan 2, 2008 9:39:34 GMT -5
I love the idea of the competitive league. So I'm definitely in. Specifically the 100 points per loss sounds great.
How would it work other than that? Would we have a set schedule of opponents? Or would our opponents be determined by a swiss-style system? Or would it be entirely informal?
|
|
|
|
Post by deewalla on Jan 2, 2008 10:58:33 GMT -5
Well, at 500 points you would be looking at a recon, or combat patrol size force. While there is no getting around that a deathwing or ravenwing is going to have alot of termies / bikes. They are at least told that some equal troops, and so still could follow a 40% troop choice comp rule without problem. Even with a fish o' doom tau army, yes, it might cause the two troop choices to be firewarriors in devilfish, and probably be the majority of ones points in troops because of it. But that would be no different then any other army wanting do the same with their transport equivilant.
I love the idea of a themed list, I have plans for my own. I just dont think it an extra ordinary request that armys take a cirtain percentage of troops.
Plus, if history is any indication, (WW2, Vietnam, Iraq) I have my bets that the army with the most manuverability, and ability to hit hard in one spot, then pack up and hit somewhere else, will have a huge advantage. As they will be able to get more done with less points and people. Well, until it comes down to a hold objective mission...
-Deewalla
H'garian Command
|
|
|
|
Post by greenmtvince on Jan 3, 2008 17:48:03 GMT -5
Well my point with the aforementioned armies is they essentially ignore comp because in they have for troops what in the standard variants of their respective lists are elites, fast attack, or heavy support. It seems arbitrary that one army be penalized on comp and another rewarded simply because one is fielding blue marines rather than green ones.
Likewise with the Tau, a fully bearded out list is 60% troops 25% Heavy, and the rest in Elite and HQ. It scores very well on comp compared to my 15% HQ, 21% Elite, 21% Troop, 29% Fast, 14% Heavy list. The difference is the former wins Grand Tournaments because it's obnoxiously hard to beat whilst the latter just happens to be cool. Both fit the themes of fielded Tau Cadres though. Again, point that arbitrary restictions on troops don't necessarily eliminate abusive lists.
I'm just not particularly interested in a Mech Tau army, nor in fielding the 36 Fire Warriors and 3 Devilfish to get me to 40%. If I want to field a bunch of basic troopers, zippy transports, or tanks, I have Valhallans and Elysians already. I'm into Tau for Battlesuits, light skimmers, and markerlight synergy.
|
|
|
|
Post by deewalla on Jan 3, 2008 20:14:09 GMT -5
touche
Well I suppose this would be one of the ideas or bugs that would be discovered in the first go at the campaign. If nothing comes of it, then no worries.
-Deewalla
H'garian Command
|
|
|
|
Post by greenmtvince on Jan 8, 2008 8:55:48 GMT -5
Alright, I wasn't there on Sunday. Did any more info or ideas come out on the league format?
|
|
|
|
Post by Sean on Jan 8, 2008 15:02:43 GMT -5
How about we start the league on Sunday January 27th?
I am open to any other ideas that you would like to see in a league. I will post "official" rules by next Monday based on your input.
I like the idea of an escalation league.
|
|
|
|
Post by deewalla on Jan 8, 2008 22:10:52 GMT -5
Dont think we talked about the league on Sunday... Im still a fan of the 100 points per loss and Mighty Empires. =D
|
|
|
|
Post by Monster Rain on Jan 9, 2008 6:09:16 GMT -5
The 100 points per loss thing sounds kind of cool, but isn't the point of an escalation league for everyone to make their army bigger? I say this because as a Necron player there really isn't a lot of diversity of options at such low point values. 20 warriors and a Lord with a resurrection orb equals 500 points, so that's my 2 troops and HQ. I think a better way to reward small army victories is for those interested to take less points of their own volition, with bonus points for a win.
|
|
|
|
Post by greenmtvince on Jan 9, 2008 8:36:06 GMT -5
Haha, yeah you'd be looking at losing 4 or 5 games until you could take some destroyers, scarabs, and/or a 'Lith.
How would folks feel about forgetting the competitive aspect and just sticking to the Mighty Empires campaign rules with some mods for 40K? I can post a rules summary later today. The important thing though is the game size is determined by you and your opponent(s) anything from a combat patrol to an Apocalypse game. This allows us to accomodate all army sizes so newer players could join, people who can't spend all day in the store, or folks looking to do something with their army that doesn't fit under broad competitive constraints.
Maybe this can even tie in with that Mordant 13 Campaign that GWUS is doing.
|
|
