Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 37 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

Drop Rule: Alternate Idea

 Post subject: Drop Rule: Alternate Idea
PostPosted: Thu Dec 01, 2011 4:18 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 6:32 pm
Posts: 6396
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania USA
This thread is being created as to not derail this thread here.

Here was my idea...
...We could make it so that the player opposing the Tyranid player gets to plot where the formations 'land' with established rules. Something like 'A minimum of 50% of all formations must arrive on turn 1, with the remaining formations arriving turn 2. Each formation must be set up a minimum of 20cm away from any other formation.' This prevents the opponent from burying your Tryanid formations completely in the back of the board.

It also takes a major chunk of randomness out of the equation, would be very quick to do, require no dice rolling, and spreads the Tyranids all over the board. It certainly puts the Tyranid player at a disadvantage and thusly the 'drop' could be a credit that your army achieves (make it worth -200 points).

All these values are off the top of my head so don't beat me to death with minutia. I'm just throwing out an idea I came up with hoping to spur a solution.

Now that I have some time to think about it, the rule would be something like this:

During the setup phase of the game, the opposing player chooses a single point on the board to place a dropping Tyranid formation. The Tyranid player then must place at least one model in that location, and then the remaining portion of the models in unit coherency. The spot selected cannot be in impassable or difficult terrain, although it may be in inconvenient terrain (such as in a section where the only access to the board is across a bridge).

The Tyranid player would choose which of his dropping formations would land at that location. This process would then repeat itself again for the next formation. For subsequent formations, the opposing player must select a location at least 20cm away from any other placed Tyranid model and at least 60cm from the opponent's board edge.


Discuss.

_________________
Current Fan-made Epic Supplements
[url=http://www.tacticalwargames.net/resources/raiders2.zip]Epic: Raiders 2.0

Epic: Siege
Making your own Epic Supplement
Syncing Forward


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Drop Rule: Alternate Idea
PostPosted: Thu Dec 01, 2011 4:22 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20862
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
Quote:
...We could make it so that the player opposing the Tyranid player gets to plot where the formations 'land' with established rules.

This would be, as far as I know, unique, in that nothing else in the game allows an opposing player to place or move your units.

And again, it adds a new unique special rule (and extra game time) to a list that is in my experience already the slowest-playing army list in Epic.


As to the specifics of your rule, it would need to take into account that not all games are played on 6x4 tables. I also don't see why a Tyranid player would want to drop in this manner, as I'd expect he's not going to have his formations placed in a usable manner.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter


Last edited by Evil and Chaos on Thu Dec 01, 2011 4:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Drop Rule: Alternate Idea
PostPosted: Thu Dec 01, 2011 4:23 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 12:52 pm
Posts: 4262
Spit balling - Use the current planet fall but each formation has to have an individual drop point, which can't be within 20cm's of each other and they always deviate 4d6cm?

So an amendment to an existing rule rather than totally new?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Drop Rule: Alternate Idea
PostPosted: Thu Dec 01, 2011 4:27 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 11:25 pm
Posts: 8676
Location: Worcester, MA
Knowing exactly where a formation is going to touch down would lead to a lot of crossfire setup/the opponent avoiding that area like the plague. You might be able to mitigate the former by having the arrival be part of the nid formation's activation (rather than at the start of the turn where the bugs have a very high change of just loosing the strategy roll). Not sure what you could do about the latter, beyond have the entire nid army spore in so there's nowhere left to avoid.

I never tested this idea but proposed it to Chroma way-back when: use planetfall but have the opponent move your drop site 15cm, rather than you. Beyond that it's just regular planetfall. I think you'd still have problems with the crossfire aspect though. The nid player would probably want to place their landing points 27cm away from any board edge too.

In anycase, planetfall is still not "rainy" enough. More of a deluge.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2018-05-15


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Drop Rule: Alternate Idea
PostPosted: Thu Dec 01, 2011 4:29 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 1:49 am
Posts: 5568
Just have a bigger scatter on normal planetfall.

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Drop Rule: Alternate Idea
PostPosted: Thu Dec 01, 2011 4:30 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20862
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
If really nessesary I'd be fine with something simple like:
"Tyranid units that use the Planetfall ability triple their scatter distance on arrival".


That being one short line that puts in a bit of uncertainty for the Tyranid player, which seems to be the end-goal that these various proposed Drop rules are trying to achieve.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Drop Rule: Alternate Idea
PostPosted: Thu Dec 01, 2011 4:50 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 6:32 pm
Posts: 6396
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania USA
Wow, out of five posts in less than five minute there is virtually no discussion the proposed rule I made.

Wow.

I will just lock the thread and start a new one if we can't stay on topic. I don't expect you to like it, but it is appropriate to stay on the thread topic. Not to rehash PLANETFALL discussion.
---

E&C, this would be for a tournament scenario only, which occurs almost exclusively on 6 x 4 or 8 x 4 boards.

Regarding the timing, this would take little extra time as the pieces have to be set up anyway. it would go something like this:

IG Player places his Baneblade. Then points to a spot in front of a hill. He says, "Set up a formation there." The Nid player then picks one of his dropping formations, places one unit there, and then starts setting up the units in coherency.

Explain why that takes significantly longer than existing game setup time.

This would undoubtedly place the Tyranid player at a disadvantage. I'm guessing some of you didn't read the OP clearly enough as I expressed that already. The reason why a player may go in this direction is you would be able to 'buy' the drop for negative points, in essence being able to build an army above your 3000 points (or whatever you selected for your starting value). The point credit isn't something I have set in stone - it could be -30 points per formation or -90 points per formation or something else.

_________________
Current Fan-made Epic Supplements
[url=http://www.tacticalwargames.net/resources/raiders2.zip]Epic: Raiders 2.0

Epic: Siege
Making your own Epic Supplement
Syncing Forward


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Drop Rule: Alternate Idea
PostPosted: Thu Dec 01, 2011 4:54 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 12:52 pm
Posts: 4262
Sorry Mosc.....

Have to say I didn't get that you were talking about during deployment time here as you don't get that during turns....or are you thinking at the same point as when teleporters arrive?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Drop Rule: Alternate Idea
PostPosted: Thu Dec 01, 2011 4:56 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20862
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
Quote:
Explain why that takes significantly longer than existing game setup time.

Because now you've got player G thinking how to disadvantage his opponent, and player T thinking about how to minimise the disadvantage presented by each drop site. Double the brains isn't going to result in the placement being twice as quick.

Quote:
being able to build an army above your 3000 points

Probably screws with tiebreakers too.

It sounds great for a scenario, but not for a tournament.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter


Last edited by Evil and Chaos on Thu Dec 01, 2011 4:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Drop Rule: Alternate Idea
PostPosted: Thu Dec 01, 2011 4:57 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 9:15 am
Posts: 1832
Location: Oslo, Norway
Even if it's not during deployment, you do save a huge amount of time if one side doesn't deploy, mostly from one player not doing anything but also because it's quicker to deploy your entire army at once rather than going back and forth.

My Necron games at least are pretty quick to set up.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Drop Rule: Alternate Idea
PostPosted: Thu Dec 01, 2011 4:59 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 6:32 pm
Posts: 6396
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania USA
Dave, the crossfire I don't see being an issue as the drop would take place prior to game setup. You would be hard pressed to set up a cross fire with units in the back of the board. Even if you could manage to get a Nid formation extremely close to your table edge, it is part of the 'drop' and is expected to place the Nid player in a bad position, thus the point credit.

Meph, I am thinking during army placement time. After garrisons but before teleports. When the players go back and forth putting their armies on the board. I think I'll just nix that whole 50% on by turn 1 thing and make it 100% of the formations. So it is all dropped by turn 1.

E&C, the tie breaker issue I haven't thought about. My initial take on it is tie breakers will go toward the Tyranids, which means it is just something that needs to be accounted for in the credit provided. A tweak.

_________________
Current Fan-made Epic Supplements
[url=http://www.tacticalwargames.net/resources/raiders2.zip]Epic: Raiders 2.0

Epic: Siege
Making your own Epic Supplement
Syncing Forward


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Drop Rule: Alternate Idea
PostPosted: Thu Dec 01, 2011 5:02 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 9:15 am
Posts: 1832
Location: Oslo, Norway
Have to say I actually like this rule. It does make two people think where only one thinks normally, so it will slow things down. But maybe not by too much, and it will give a pretty nice semi-random spread of nids all over, like you would expect from a mycetic spore attack.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Drop Rule: Alternate Idea
PostPosted: Thu Dec 01, 2011 5:03 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20862
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
With a high SR army I would also place a couple of 'nid formations in highly vulnerable positions and attack them before the Tyranids took their first move.

I would also start taking more Spacecraft with bombardment templates to tournaments, as I could place Tyranid formations under my pre-plotted bombardment location, ensuring maximum destruction.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter


Last edited by Evil and Chaos on Thu Dec 01, 2011 5:07 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Drop Rule: Alternate Idea
PostPosted: Thu Dec 01, 2011 5:03 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 12:52 pm
Posts: 4262
Interesting concept now I get what you're driving at :)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Drop Rule: Alternate Idea
PostPosted: Thu Dec 01, 2011 5:07 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 6:32 pm
Posts: 6396
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania USA
Meh, you can do that anyway and to a worse effect with Spacecraft without this rule. Tyranids and Orks and IG suffer terribly with huge formations in a 15cm deployment zone and a turn 1 bombardment. Besides, tourney rules are designed on not knowing your opponent, so you can't use that as an argument. I could design any army against any other army if I knew who I was up against.

_________________
Current Fan-made Epic Supplements
[url=http://www.tacticalwargames.net/resources/raiders2.zip]Epic: Raiders 2.0

Epic: Siege
Making your own Epic Supplement
Syncing Forward


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 37 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


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
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  


Powered by phpBB ® Forum Software © phpBB Group
CoDFaction Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net