[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/phpbb/session.php on line 580: sizeof(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/phpbb/session.php on line 636: sizeof(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/functions.php on line 4511: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at [ROOT]/includes/functions.php:3257)
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/functions.php on line 4511: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at [ROOT]/includes/functions.php:3257)
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/includes/functions.php on line 4511: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at [ROOT]/includes/functions.php:3257)
Armourdale 2012 Results - WestGamer
It is currently Mon Oct 21, 2019 11:38 am

All times are UTC+08:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 24 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Armourdale 2012 Results
PostPosted: Mon Dec 10, 2012 9:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 1:18 pm
Posts: 2737
Location: Armadale
The weekend of the 8th and 9th of December 2012 saw an Apocalyptic clash between 19 Players, fielding 12 Armies totalling 72,000 points.

Congratulations to all those who took part in Armourdale 2012. Below is a list of the winners of the event, the rankings for each category can be found here.
Overfiend: Overall Tournament Winner
Would You Like To Know More?
Gregg Johnson and Scott Hawkins


Warmaster: Individual Generalship
Knights Crusade
Sean Biss


Masters of the Chapter: Team Generalship
Team America
Chris Maunder and Sam Skinner


Honour Guard: Team Sportsmanship
For Kingdon & Copley
Russ “Deathwish” Copley & Rhys Kingdon


Medallion Crimson: Individual Sportsmanship
Operation Desert Storm
Troy Kealley


WarKraft: Composition (Peer judged)
I’ve Got Clouds In My Head
Jake Baldwin, Sean Russell and Chris Thomas


WarKraft (Organiser judged)
Chaotic Rejects
Ted Withers


Painting Award for best unit or Vehicle (as judged by your peers)
Scott Hawkins

Painting Award for best cohesive force (as judged by your peers)
Troy Kealley

Best Custom Data Sheet
Necron Sphynx
Sheldon Chambers and Alexander Danaford


Best Custom Formation
Forward Operations Base
Richard Henderson


Tank Ace: Tank Vs. Tank Kills
Troy Kealley

Top Gun: Flyer Vs. Flyer Kills
Chris Maunder

Titan Killer: Super Heavies Destroyed
Sheldon Chambers

Siege Breaker: Bunkers/Fortifications Destroyed
Russ “No you can’t blow up your own bunkers” Copley

Scalp Taker: Independent Characters/Monstrous Creatures Killed
Sean Biss
The Apocalypse will return in August 2013 (assuming the Mayan Apocalypse is cancelled) :wink:
Thanks to all of you who attended, Evan who helped run the event and to Richard, Russ the “Laptop Slayer”, Grant, Alex, Sheldon, Jake, Sean, Chris and anyone I’ve forgotten to name for helping with the setup and packing away.

Armourdale will be back in 2013, please feel free to provide any feedback you can think of as I intend to make some changes to next year’s event.

Cheers
Gary


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Dec 10, 2012 1:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 3:57 pm
Posts: 2314
Location: Perth
Thanks Gary for a great weekend, and thanks to everyone else for the awesome games. :D

The smaller attendance this year certainly didn't hurt the competitiveness of the field - those last two games in particular were extremely tough. I do have some thoughts as relates to attendance, tho', and turn times:

- the first official announcement of Armoudale 2012 came only one month before the event itself. Even though it's an annual event with slavish devotees such as Scott and myself pencilling it into our schedules from the previous year, many people would need more notice to arrange the days off AND assemble a 6000pt army. If you're able to provide the details and players pack 2 months in advance, I feel attendance would improve.

- In regards to the short games (short in turns taken, anyway), the obvious place to look is the points: more points = longer games. Based on the first couple years of Armourdale, I feel 5000pt armies would make for big games that would see more action in the time provided. The suggestions of force composition restrictions would undoubtedly disadvantage certain armies (eg 'nids couldn't possibly cover the board with synapse if they had a limit on individual Zoanthrope models), and should be play-tested before becoming official. At least, such restrictions woud certainly limit some of the spectacular sh*t that we see at Armourdale every year. :)

So yes! More advanced notice of the tourney, and less points for better battles are my two suggestions. Otherwise, as with every year, me and Scott had a blast. Thanks again, Gary! :D


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Dec 10, 2012 1:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 3:57 pm
Posts: 2314
Location: Perth
Actually, something else in regards to time taken: some new rules that meant more time was taken included asisgning wounds on the closest models to the shooter, and then Look Out Sir roles.

In a mixed squad, taking wounds from the front often meant rolling them one at a time. When a character got hit, it often meant two rolls (one to save, one for Look Out Sir). Clearly this has nothing to do with the tourney set-up, but when playing against armies that have mixed units (Scott and I played three Space Marine armies... so yeah, this happened a lot) this kind of delay is inevitable.

Edit: obviously, this same issue occurs when guys have to jump out of exploding vehicles or collapsing bunkers... lord knows we have plenty of both in Apocalypse. :mrgreen:


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Dec 10, 2012 3:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 11:10 am
Posts: 351
Location: Midland
Well i think using a chess clock would help that way each player would get the same amount of time and as for mass troop type armys if you are going to use an army like that you should take the time to practice to get quicker at using that type of army, and if you cant play a large army quickly by yourself get some team mates then all of these issues will go away.

_________________
Currently painting : Tau army
Next painting project : Empire army
Currently collecting : Grey knights and Forgeworld models.


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Dec 10, 2012 5:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 3:57 pm
Posts: 2314
Location: Perth
Quote:
Well i think using a chess clock would help that way each player would get the same amount of time and as for mass troop type armys if you are going to use an army like that you should take the time to practice to get quicker at using that type of army, and if you cant play a large army quickly by yourself get some team mates then all of these issues will go away.
A chess clock works for games in which both sides work with the same tools, using the same principles. Even games such as Bloodbowl work with times turns because even though a blocking team and dodging team will use different models and tactics, they both have the same number of units that can only perform a limited number of actions. Personally I enjoy games under time restrictions because it forces the player to strategise quickly and prioritise their tasks.

In 40k, even a minimal amount of points will see two armies take the field with vastly different numbers and types of troops. Besides, some apocalypse armies are ONLY viable as mass troop armies (eg 'nids), and it's hardly fair to penalise a player for his choice in army. And while having a team-mate(s) can help speed things up, it's hardly the fix-all you suggest (as me and Scott found out on Saturday).

Additionally, not all mass troop armies are equal in regards to movement and combat. IG have Chimeras, so setup and movement in the first turn or two is obviously going to take less time than it will for 20 hormagaunts. Where an IG squad will rapid-fire their lasguns, 20 charging hormagaunts could have up to 80 attacks, rerolling 1s, and then potentially rerolling failed wounds on low-toughness enemies... clearly, we're going to be here a while, and all for a measly 100pts. :P

40k is set up to provide balance between the armies in regards to overall strategy and combat - time taken in deployment, movement and combat is one area in which no balance can be realistically struck.


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Dec 10, 2012 6:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 11:10 am
Posts: 351
Location: Midland
Yes but in saying that you can have up to four people in your team, so if you are going to plan a mass troop army why not have a couple of people there to help you two do movement and rolling dice and what not.

_________________
Currently painting : Tau army
Next painting project : Empire army
Currently collecting : Grey knights and Forgeworld models.


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Dec 10, 2012 8:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 1:18 pm
Posts: 2737
Location: Armadale
Thanks for the feedback and congratulations on your win Gregg.

Hopefully next year, I won't be waiting till the last 4 weeks before the event before being able to confirm I have the weekend off!

The short lead time was certainly a factor, as is the time of year. Next year we will be holding the event in August and I intend to get the tickets and player's packs out much earlier.

I'm not keen on chess clocks, this is supposed to be a fun event and not super competitive. Besides the player whose turn it is may not be the one using all the time up. Pretty much every phase requires both sides to resolve things for example; saves, close combat attacks, snap shooting at chargers and even using assets like disruption beacons. You may not be able to finish your turn because of your opponent's time consuming actions.

Having more players on your team often doesn't speed up resolution unless you have an organised group. Plus you can only resolve things at the best speed of your opponents, for example they may have only two players to your three.

The current force size and the use of cumulative scoring missions, evolved from the earlier events. Originally the sort of armies at Armourdale tended to be either straight codex or predominantly super heavy for example. Often they dominated in one particular area, this meant some armies just had no answer to the extreme builds. We placed restrictions on the number of super heavies for example to counter this.

Likewise in early events the Apocalypse mission favoured last minute objective grabs. The games played faster as more units remained in reserve for the last round grab. We then went to cumulative scoring missions, but armies have evolved to take advantage of this.

Whilst I appreciate that Armourdale allows players to use those units they don't often get a chance field, there has to be some constraints to enable both sides to enjoy the event. I will be considering using some form of force organisation to hopefully speed up game play. There will certainly be some variation to the missions as well.

Please keep the feedback and suggestions coming.


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Dec 10, 2012 8:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 3:57 pm
Posts: 2314
Location: Perth
Quote:
The current force size and the use of cumulative scoring missions, evolved from the earlier events. Originally the sort of armies at Armourdale tended to be either straight codex or predominantly super heavy for example. Often they dominated in one particular area, this meant some armies just had no answer to the extreme builds. We placed restrictions on the number of super heavies for example to counter this.

Likewise in early events the Apocalypse mission favoured last minute objective grabs. The games played faster as more units remained in reserve for the last round grab. We then went to cumulative scoring missions, but armies have evolved to take advantage of this.
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 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.
Quote:
Whilst I appreciate that Armourdale allows players to use those units they don't often get a chance field, there has to be some constraints to enable both sides to enjoy the event. I will be considering using some form of force organisation to hopefully speed up game play. There will certainly be some variation to the missions as well.
I'm all for trying something new, so long as it's fun and fair for everyone. :D


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Dec 10, 2012 11:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 12:23 pm
Posts: 1517
Location: Space, Above and Beyond
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!

Already mentioned my thoughts but definately mixing up the missions is not a bad idea. That said Doobleg is right in that cumulative victory points do make for a much more tactical game. So despite my cheesy army:
Quote:
IG solar eclipses flyer builds
- his team still managed to win - despite the horrendous damage I inflicted - through smart tactics :D*. We don't want to go back to a scenario where it's 'whoever has the most expensive toys - wins'. I think the best bet is to drop the points back to 5K, maybe add some mission variation - but don't drop cumulative VPs.

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.

* want to say at this point thanks for a great game guys - from the end of turn one I knew you had it in the bag, but I made sure you payed the 'Iron Price' for the win! :)

_________________
Dice for the Dice God!


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Dec 10, 2012 11:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 29, 2010 10:38 pm
Posts: 1283
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.

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.
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.

However interested to see peoples views on the contrary.

Also never played at amourdale so wonder if garry has already restricted all this stuff and my post is totally irrelevant :oops:

_________________
Book of grudges:

Olly
Roleplayer09
Wolflord

Revenge shall be mine!


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Dec 11, 2012 8:05 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 3:57 pm
Posts: 2314
Location: Perth
Quote:
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...
I would recommend playing an apocalypse match with strategic assets and formations before writing them off, bud. Assets add a great tactical element to the game, often supporting your army choice and strategy, and for most seemingly game-breaking assets (eg flank march) there is a counter-asset (disruptor beacon).

Also, we took an Endless Swarm to Armourdale this year, and not once did three Space Marine armies or one IG army roll five 6's when shooting at my critters, so again it's not the game-breaker you suggest. Formations add the flavour to an apocalypse game, and reward players for taking a cohesive force that (not coincidentally) looks great on the table.

So yes, your assertion that a tourney without these rules wouldn't really be an apocalypse tourney is correct. :)


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Dec 11, 2012 11:17 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 1:18 pm
Posts: 2737
Location: Armadale
Quote:
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 “encourage” forces that don’t just park on the objectives and soak up fire.
Quote:
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 opponent’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.
Quote:
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 unit’s point cost) for a single formation to 2600 for 4 super heavies and 1 custom model. It’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.
Quote:
I'm all for trying something new, so long as it's fun and fair for everyone. :D
That is the challenge, coming up with a set of composition rules that encourages a fair game at a reasonable pace that doesn’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 don’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?
Quote:
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!
Quote:
That said Doobleg is right in that cumulative victory points do make for a much more tactical game. So despite my cheesy army:
Quote:
IG solar eclipses flyer builds
- his team still managed to win - despite the horrendous damage I inflicted - through smart tactics :D*.
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!
Quote:
We don't want to go back to a scenario where it's 'whoever has the most expensive toys - wins'.
I’m saving that scenario for when I get to play in my own right but not as ringer.
Quote:
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 I’m working out the final results :evil:
Quote:
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 aren’t game breaking. Number of units versus time seems to be the issue.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
Also never played at amourdale so wonder if garry has already restricted all this stuff and my post is totally irrelevant :oops:
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.
Quote:
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. I’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.


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Dec 11, 2012 11:47 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 3:57 pm
Posts: 2314
Location: Perth
Quote:
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.
Right there, the 'nid army is nerfed.
- my termagant and hormagaunt units ran 20 strong and totalled 140 and 200 points respectively. They *can* run to 30, but it's just not practical (militarily or financially).
- the Zoanthropes that provide my all-important synapse run at 60 points each. They can be fielded in units of 3, but then they must stay together and my synapse coverage is lost.

Not sure if any other armies are similarly affected, but it obviously doesn't hurt any mechanised forces at all.

I know this was just an ad-hoc, spur of the moment suggestion, but I'm not sure what purpose such limitations will serve. If I do field my critters in large enough numbers to beat the 200pt limit, we certainly won't be saving any time. :)


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Dec 12, 2012 8:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 1:18 pm
Posts: 2737
Location: Armadale
Quote:
Right there, the 'nid army is nerfed.
- my termagant and hormagaunt units ran 20 strong and totalled 140 and 200 points respectively. They *can* run to 30, but it's just not practical (militarily or financially).
Then my work here is done :twisted:

The theory is that if you have 4 Hormaguant units of 30 instead of 6 of 20, you will take slightly less time to resolve things. I understand the model count is the same but you only have 4 units to decide what to do with.

Obviously my suggested restrictions fall into a big heap of unfairness when you consider an IG squad can still meet the above criteria at only 50 points. Given that infantry armies are one of the key consumers of game time, then it is unlikely that we will notice any real savings.
Quote:
- the Zoanthropes that provide my all-important synapse run at 60 points each. They can be fielded in units of 3, but then they must stay together and my synapse coverage is lost.
Well this is Apocaylpse and whilst some people might find the idea offensive, you could always include some kind of Brain Bug custom data sheet 8)
Would you like to know more? :P
Quote:
Not sure if any other armies are similarly affected, but it obviously doesn't hurt any mechanised forces at all.
You are correct in pointing out that mechanised armies would have a distinct advantage. Removing exception C (The unit is a vehicle worth more than 50 points) would even that up a bit and would reduce the overall unit count of a lot of builds. Looking at this year’s lists, that would still have only reduced the unit count by between 3 and 6 per army. Once again not a big saving of time!
Quote:
I know this was just an ad-hoc, spur of the moment suggestion, but I'm not sure what purpose such limitations will serve. If I do field my critters in large enough numbers to beat the 200pt limit, we certainly won't be saving any time. :)
The rationale, is that less units mean less decisions about deploying, moving and targeting. Using your big dice bucket you can resolve the combat more efficiently. However any savings achieved might be only minor.

Other ideas I am considering are:
  • A. Limiting the number of units that can be on the table per side at any one time.
    B. Limiting the number of each type of unit.
    C. Reducing the points.
    D. Reducing the points, but allowing players to unlock and use bonus points by fielding certain units, fortifications and/or formations.
I will explain these ideas when I have some time to detail them.

Please keep the feedback and ideas coming.


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Dec 12, 2012 1:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 12:23 pm
Posts: 1517
Location: Space, Above and Beyond
Hey Gary have you got a full breakdown of the results?

_________________
Dice for the Dice God!


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 24 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 Next

All times are UTC+08:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited