Cumulative victory points is definitely the best method for Armourdale, as there's no way of guaranteeing getting all 6 turns in that a full game would allow for. Being aware of scoring/denial every turn forces players to think beyond the current shooting phase. And yes, armies that go for scoring/denial/nuisance over killing were exactly what me and Scott brought in previous years - this year was a move away from that (I left my disposable bikes and landspeeders at home), and we were very happy that a cohesive, offensive force worked even better (and was a lot more fun to play).
I agree that Cumulative victory point missions do work when playing a game to completion is not always guaranteed. But I would like to mix it up a bit to â€œencourageâ€ forces that donâ€™t just park on the objectives and soak up fire.
Some additional thoughts for variety and extra tactical thinking would be to incorporate the 6th ed bonus points - i.e. Linebreaker, Kill the Warlord, and scoring fast attack/heavy support (with the double edge of those units worth VPs to the opponent). Food for thought at least.
I do believe that this is the way to go, with some tweaks and bonus points awarded each turn. For example Line Breaker could be changed so that both sides work out how many units they have in their opponentâ€™s deployment zone and whoever has the most gets a bonus point for the turn. We could even change that to Zones of Control where you get 1 bonus point for having the most units in each of the 3 zones, potentially scoring up to 3 bonus points. I will address the issue of small units later.
I think the restrictions you placed on custom data sheets (no more than half the army), super-heavies (no more than 5), and off-table strategic assets (eg orbital bombardments) encourage players to consider more rounded forces for best results. We still saw some fairly extreme compositions this year (Necron and IG
solar eclipses flyer builds, Ork stompa hordes etc), and these worked to varying degrees based on how they were used (IG flyers kicked our ass!), but mainly on how the rest of the army was built and used. Regardless of results, fielding these builds is undoubtedly a big attraction to many players.
With the exception of mine all the forces at Armourdale used one or more of the following, Formations, Flyers (Codex or IA) and Super Heavies (including Primarchs). This ranged in points per army from 50 (+ the unitâ€™s point cost) for a single formation to 2600 for 4 super heavies and 1 custom model. Itâ€™s certainly not a case of people not using the big apocalypse units or a lack of varied units that is slowing down the game.
This year at Armourdale there were 360 units. This figure includes all unit types and Independent Characters, Dedicated Transports and Compulsory Combat Squads (Ravenwing). The smallest number of units in a force was 24, the largest was 40 and the average was 30. Some armies could combat squad up to 42 units plus in total.
Not surprisingly the 40 unit army was the slowest, as far as I can recall based on waiting for results.
Using the total of 72000 points and 360 units deployed, the average point cost per unit would be 200. However even before taking into account compulsory combat squadding and counting dedicated transports and their passengers as two separate units there were 215 units deployed that cost less than 200 points. Whilst these could vary in size from 1 vehicle or character etc up to 20 models, the average size was 11 models.
Given this information I am thinking of imposing the following restrictions:
- The minimum unit size is 200 points unless the following criteria apply
A. The unit has the maximum number of models allowed for the unit.
B. The unit has a dedicated transport and that limits the number of models.
C. The unit is a vehicle worth more than 50 points.
D. It is the only unit of its type in the force. Taking different options does not make the unit unique for the purposes of this rule.
Obviously I will need to consider this further and welcome suggestions.
I'm all for trying something new, so long as it's fun and fair for everyone.
That is the challenge, coming up with a set of composition rules that encourages a fair game at a reasonable pace that doesnâ€™t exclude players and/or their force build of choice!
I am also thinking of including a rule as well that states that you have to roll all the attack dice for any unit in your force in one go. This would mean that players would have to bring enough dice and possibly a big dice cup and box to cast them into, to handle the maximum attack of their largest unit. If you donâ€™t have enough dice the excess attacks are wasted.
Whilst this does mean that horde players will have to either buy or borrow the dice, it should speed up resolution. I guess if you want to field a Titan you need the model so why not have the same restriction on gaming equipment?
Firstly - thanks again Gary and Evan and AWG for another great tournament. Had a great set of games and came very close to top spot for the first time ever, which was encouraging!
You are welcome!
That said Doobleg is right in that cumulative victory points do make for a much more tactical game. So despite my cheesy army:
solar eclipses flyer builds
- his team still managed to win - despite the horrendous damage I inflicted - through smart tactics
So just to clarify you were the Persians, Gregg and Scott were the Spartans and the nine flyers were the arrow cloud blocking the sun? Not to be confused with any Necron shenanigans!
We don't want to go back to a scenario where it's 'whoever has the most expensive toys - wins'.
Iâ€™m saving that scenario for when I get to play in my own right but not as ringer.
Personally would love to play at this tournament.
However severe restrictions would need to be in place, and not sure if it would really be apocalypse for some people.
It would be great to have you attend, however hopefully the only severe restriction I will ever have to impose is the authorisation of the use of lethal force if Russ ever attempts to approach a power point or the laptop whilst Iâ€™m working out the final results
Strategic assets for example, skim reading these just sound convoluted, time consuming, or flat out silly.
Superheavies, Vehicles squadrons and unique units, no problem. But some of the unit formations just make me put the book down. Endless swarm for example. If shooting at the unit if you roll 5 or more sixes shooting is nullified as the units ammo has run dry. So 50 guardsmen shooting at an endless swarm which is what should be happening in the 40k verse is actually a pretty stupid thing to do. Right...
Personally I see Apocalypse as a chance to field unique units and superheavies that cannot be used in regular games. Though I see nothing wrong with playing these within the core ruleset with the superheavy/unique units thrown in. Just not the strategic assets and weird formation rules.
Actually the strategic assets and formations work quite well and generally arenâ€™t game breaking. Number of units versus time seems to be the issue.
I have played 10000 point games in 5th with stompas, banebaldes etc and 2 x 6x4 tables thrown together. A total blast and mass carnage without all the extra rules to slow it down.
How many turns and how long did it take? At Armourdale you are effectively playing a 24000 point a side game over 14 hours. Plus you have to deploy 4 times.
Also never played at amourdale so wonder if garry has already restricted all this stuff and my post is totally irrelevant
No, basically the only restrictions that are in place are those designed to stop people building forces that break the intent of the tournament which is for both sides to have a chance at winning and enjoying the event.
I would recommend playing an apocalypse match with strategic assets and formations before writing them off, bud.
On the 22/12/2012 we have booked our hall from 8:00 to 18:00. Iâ€™m already arranging a 10000 point game with Dizzy, but if anyone else is looking for a game there is plenty of room in the hall. Entry is $5.00.