Hey all,

Reading through the larger battle reports here, I've noticed that larger games played with the Tournament scenario tend to end in draws. Here's a multiquote from The Battle for Vardan, a great battle report by Fiore.



I picked this snippet as the sentinements about the tournament scenario in large games have turned up before:
1) They Shall Not Pass and Break Their Spirit being relatively harder to achieve.
2) The objectives tend to get bogged down – 'home' objectives are relatively more easy to defend (particularly on large tables), for example.

Rather than suggesting tweaks to these objectives, I wondered if people would like to brainstorm a dedicated 6000pt Tournament scenario, with new objectives that reward larger games and help to achieve a decisive result. As an example:



I emphasise that these are just examples made up on the spot; Engine Kill, for example, is designed to reward taking – and killing! – big things, but it's not necessary for large games to have Engines at all. However, in principle, would a specific scenario, geared to creating a more decisive large battle, be attractive?

_________________
Industrious, red-robe wearing member of the PCRC

I am not sure that you need to ban 'corner' deployment on larger tables; rather you should modify the zone. Perhaps the following would work So, a couple of examples:-

• On a table 8'x4' (240x120 cm), the zone would start 2' up the short side and go 5' along the 'long' side (60 x 150 cm)
• On a table 10'x5', the zone would start 2'6" up the short side and go 6'6" along the long side (75 x 195 cm)

I agree it’d be good to have a special large battle scenario.

I like your ideas – I think they would definitely give a more decisive result as most of the goals would be achievable for both sides. You might still end up with a draw, but less likely than when you have to write-off several of the goals as very difficult to achieve (as with the normal tournament scenario in big games).

I like the possibility of an earlier victory as well, as large games do tend to take a while, and often run out of time.

I think I’d probably prefer a simpler approach to objectives, as there would be a bit of bookkeeping using this method. I like the idea of the Decapitation goal for theme, but I’d worry a bit about those armies that can’t take supreme commanders in very powerful formations – they might get regularly eaten for breakfast by air assaults etc

If I was writing the scenario I’d use the same approach but probably a simplified set of goals. Maybe something like:

Objectives
Place objectives as per the Tournament Scenario. All objectives controlled at the end of a turn score one objective point. If you control the objective on your opponent’s table edge you score two objective points.

Goals

1) Critical targets – demoralise. Identify your opponent’s three most valuable formations. You achieve one goal if you destroy any one of these formations or reduce any two to less than half strength.

2) Critical targets – devastate. Identify your opponent’s three most valuable formations. You achieve one additional goal if you destroy any two of these formations or reduce all three to less than half strength.

3) Strike and Control. The player with the most objective points at the end of a turn achieves one goal. If you have double your opponent’s objective points or more you achieve two goals.

4) Sweep and Clear. You achieve one goal if you control more table quarters than your opponent at the end of a turn. You control a table quarter if it contains an unbroken friendly formation and no unbroken enemy formations. Formations which cross more than one table quarter count as being in the quarter where most of their units are. If this is not clear, the owning player may choose which quarter the formation counts as being in (maximum one).

5) Air superiority. You achieve one goal if at the end of a turn your opponent has no aircraft formations which are not:
a) Destroyed
b) Stood down
c) Landed
If you started the game with no flying units at all then your opponent cannot earn the Air Superiority goal (we assume your army must have some off-table means of defending the skies).

Thought I'd add a bit of commentary the ideas above.

Commentary

1) I was trying to achieve a bit of balance between the types of goal. The two Critical Targets goals encourage you to take at least three powerful formations to make this hard for your opponent. Hopefully this will get some titans on the table! But if you take three Warlords you will probably start to suffer a lack of activations. And activations is what you’ll need to do well at Strike and Control and Sweep and Clear.

2) Critical Targets. I thought it would be good to give some reward for reducing powerful formations to half strength. This might remove the “It’s a Warlord. Why do I even bother?” factor. I’m not sure about giving rewards for broken formations, as some armies are so good at rallying (marines, orks).

3) Strike and Control. Unless both players hold exactly the same number of objectives, one player will always have this goal, which should make a decisive victory more likely. One of the exciting things in the normal tournament scenario is that you can have a lot of last minute swings. Eg a last activation blitz grab can take you from zero goals to two goals. You might lose this by just adding up one point for each objective, and things could be static and predictable. So I gave two points for holding your opponent’s board edge objective, and the possibility of earning two goals if you double their objective points. This gives a lot to play for.

4) Sweep and Clear. Hopefully table quarters should be a bit easier to achieve in a big game than They Shall Not Pass is.

5) Air Superiority. This one’s from leftfield! Something different. Basically, if your opponent has nothing in the air at the end of a turn, you get a goal. Hopefully this might discourage people from landing loads of empty aircraft to contest objectives on the last turn, which can be annoying (especially in a big game if they’ve got, like, four empty thunderhawks). If you start the game with no aircraft, your opponent cannot get this goal at all. This doesn’t make a lot of logical sense (unless we assume you have no aircraft because you have some off-table means of defending the skies) and is purely for balance. It means that there is some possibility/incentive to take no aircraft if you want, which might be nice to see occasionally.

Had an idea a lttle while ago that may be of interest.

each player has a secondary objective
, this is recorded but not revealed to the other player. just adds a bit of doubt into the game not knowing if a frmation is sitting on an extra objective

_________________
Epic TOEG mostly done
Terrain log
1/25 dark future

General notes
Thanks for the feedback so far. I've updated the deployment rules (ta, Ginger) and stripped out the objectives and victory conditions for the moment.

Before we thrash out the victory conditions, it would be useful if we go for an abstract of what people want in a large game. My suggestions would be:
1) An opportunity to use large formations or centrepiece models, without handicapping yourself, in order to create a visual spectacle with lots of models on the board.
2) The depth and strategy of regular-sized games of Epic: Armageddon, including the freedom to use a variety of army styles and tactics, as in regular-sized games (i.e. you're not forced to take certain models/unit types to be competitive or have an enjoyable game).
3) Lots of conflict from the very beginning.
4) A decisive result in a reasonable amount of time (a single day's play).
5) Compatibility with existing army lists. (e.g. the mission needs objective markers in order to allow Biel-Tan armies the opportunity to use their Wraithgate)

Decent-sounding aims, I think – but what are you looking for in a game, and how would you achieve them through objectives, using the 'frame' of the large mission at the end of this post?

Specific notes

Agreed – I'd originally removed the option in order to simulate a 'pitched battle', rather than an escalating engagement; and also to prevent big bombardments (on the basis deployment would be crowded and artillery/space bombardment is more likely to appear), but in practice some armies would benefit while others would suffer. It's best to be as flexible as possible, so I've added in your suggestion.


That seems sensible. The intention was to encourage early engagement and prevent last minute objective-grabbing by rewarding holding the objectives from turn to turn. Some armies – particularly those that are very fast or mobile – would be at an advantage by objectives on larger boards, for example.


Yes, I'd agree with that. Relating to both your points, it's worth noting that the standard Tournament scenario has some objectives that are relatively easier or harder for certain armies to achieve, so I'd be content if this Large Game scenario has the same feature – I think it's a case of working out how many objectives should be included, and what they should be.

I like your goal suggestions – they require less book-keeping, which is a very good thing in a large game! How would you organise objectives and placement?

Not so keen on Air Superiority, as I think it's a bit restrictive on what people can take. I'm not a fan of aircraft personally, but I know some people are; and they should be free to play what they like. Also, there are some lists which rely heavily on them.
+++

Here's the template so far; please feel free to copy and paste and add your own objectives/victory conditions.

_________________
Industrious, red-robe wearing member of the PCRC

Just a couple of things:

I think Fiore's objectives make sense.

I don't like Air superiority, for several reasons. For one, it can be expressed in the game itself - i.e. if my bombers actually do have free reign then I gain the tactical benefit from that through the course of the turn. For another, it's a bit weird. I can fail an activation for a ground attack (or choose not to ground attack that turn), and that means my opponent, who has no planes at all, gets a victory condition?

I'm not convinced on the 0-1 conditions. Most of those I can think of are army-level constraints, fluffwise. e.g. 1 avatar per craftworld, 1 master per chapter. I'd rather it worked on that basis: i.e. if there are 9k of marines made up of 3 chapters, yes you could have 3 supreme commanders but each can only use their re-roll on initiative tests taken by their chapter. 9k of units from 1 chapter = 1 supreme commander.

In fact in general, the 0-1 stuff hints at another thing that is so far implicit but worth defining: to whom do special abilities apply (e.g. each avatar can only be placed near a farseer from the same army, but if it suffers a critical then it only affects that army). Likewise, it is perhaps worth defining force construction, i.e. that you can combine any number of separate armies into one force, but each army must be legal.

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list

One thing I was wondering, is if it's possible to reduce the "first turn effect" by doing something like extending deployment ranges. The first turn tends to take longer in my games, but relatively little actually happens. This is because there is more thinking about what to do involved, and more trying to out-activate the enemy, whilst many formations are doing nothing but moving into position. If more things were able to get stuck in from the get go, it would seem to get more "value" from the time available.

Some formations are too slow to get in on the action in 3 turns, so if you start checking victory conditions in turn 3, these formations really need to be starting further forward if they are to be able to affect the game.

The downside is I guess that armies which need maximum space between themselves and the enemy (e.g. artillery) might suffer.

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list

Garben, sorry – didn't spot your reply earlier. I like the idea of secret secondary objectives; how would you implement it? Would you use a similar recording method as orbital bombardments?

Kyrt, thanks for the input. That's a good summary of one problem with the air superiority victory condition. For the moment, let's leave it out and see what we can add instead.



Yes, I was a bit unsure about this myself. The armies are explicitly noted as being designed around 3,000pt games, and in some cases the 0–1 limits add important flexibility or tactics to the lists; hence why I extended the limit. Background-wise, it does seem weird to have more than one Avatar or Supreme Commander (for example), but I'm unsure of the consequences of removing them from certain armies. The re-roll for initiative that many commanders grant is an important part of many battle plans...

Basically, I think the restricted units add important mechanics, so I don't want to remove them; but keeping them at 0–1 makes them proportionally less effective and relatively easier to remove. It would be easy to add a little background explanation along the lines of:


How does that sound?


I'm inclined to leave it more open than that, personally. It does lead to the potential for three Avatars to appear at once to attack a critical point, (for example), but that's arguably part of the appeal of such a big game – and concentrating force like that will leave weaknesses elsewhere. Leaving it open allows for unbalanced forces (e.g. a player with 9000pts can play against a team of three, each with 3000pts) without unfairly penalising the guy who's brought along a big army of his own.

Ultimately, this should be a mission that aims to make things as simple and fun as possible – there's enough logistics and complications in organising a big game without making the army selection more difficult than it needs to be.

That said, I'm not opposed to a tighter structure, if it improves the game. What would you suggest?

Also, should each Supreme Commander allow a re-roll, or should the additional ones simply provide a backup in case one dies?


Since this mission is intended as a general one that would allow both team games (where everyone brings a 'normal-sized' 3000pt army), and for individuals to play with larger points levels, I completely agree with this point. How would you phrase things to allow both individuals and teams?

Thanks very much for the thoughtful input, by the way!

+++


Agreed. The Tournament scenario sets the armies 24in apart (12in from the edge on the suggested 48in table), so perhaps it would make sense to have the deployment zones measured at least 12in from the centre line. That ensures that aggressive close-in armies can start close, while artillery etc. can set up much deeper (assuming the board is deeper than 48in, of course).

I have suggested that the Large Tournament scenario is played on a 48in deep board, but adding flexibility for deeper boards would be great.

The garrison rules could be extended, too – one formation per 3,000pts is allowed to garrison, for example?

_________________
Industrious, red-robe wearing member of the PCRC

Excellent list of aims, which pretty much matches what I'd want the scenario to achieve. The first aim is an important one to me - a high number of activations will always be crucial, but it'd be nice if the scenario somehow encouraged use of big war engines and formations. A useful side effect of having more big formations might be to speed up the game - fewer activations means fewer choices to be made (particularly in the marathon first turn big games tend to have).

On point 2 I'd also emphasize that one of the cool things about the normal Tournament Scenario is how close the often are. It's usually exciting because things can swing back and forth or be decided on the last activation. I think we'd want to capture that.



In retrospect, I agree. It was a silly idea



I like this. We'd want to avoid the 40k Apocalypse type situation where you have huge armies set up within spitting distance of each other, but a small increase in deployment area would be cool. It would give something else to consider, more room to deploy the vast armies in play, more usefulness for very slow troops and ensure lots of action even if only three turns are played.



I think the tournament scenario is 15cm from the table edge isn't it? An increase to something like 25cm from the edge doesn't sound much, but would actually make quite a difference to deployment and the game.

It'd be nice to have more objectives on the table than in the normal tournament scenario.

Adding too many more might run the risk of favouring armies with lots of small, fast activations, which don't need much more encouragement!

I think I'd probably go with 4 for each army. For simplicity, these could be placed in exactly the same way as in the Tournament Scenario, except the fourth objective, which is placed in your own half at least 30cm from the table edge and any other objective.

I agree, and I'd suggest that the Victory Conditions would be a good place to ensure this is the case: organically encouraging such formations as a good choice, rather than adding special rules (the 40k Apocalypse approach).


Agreed – quoted for emphasis


Definitely worth testing out
(and yes, it is 15cm in the normal Tournament scenario. Brainfart on my part!)

_________________
Industrious, red-robe wearing member of the PCRC

Okay, here's the revised version of the Large Tournament Scenario. Let's get some playtesting in

Large Tournament Scenario v1.1
This scenario is designed for armies of 6,000pts or above and a board of at least 8 x 4ft (240 x 120cm). The term 'team' is used below, but this can be substituted with 'players' for a one-on-one large game.

+++

L1: Board size
L1.1: Use a board of 240 x 120cm (8 x 4ft) if possible. Once the board is set up, divide it into 60 x 120cm (2 x 4ft) sections in consultation with the opposing team. Each of these 60 x 120cm (2 x 4ft) areas is a Combat Area (see L5.2 Seize Ground).
L1.2: For every additional 3,000pts over 6,000pts, add 8 square feet of table space, if possible. This is equivalent to an additional 60 x 120cm (2 x 4ft) of board.

+++

L2: Limitations
L2.1: Decide upon a points limit to be used by the team.
L2.1.1: 0–X limitations of army lists are raised by 1 for each complete 3,000pts after the first, and stipulations of 'one per army' are also raised by increments of 1 per 3,000pts. For example, at a points limit of 9,000pts, an army chosen from the Biel-Tan list may field up to 3 Avatars; and an army chosen from the Ghazghull Mag Uruk Thraka's War Horde list may field up to 3 Warbosses.
L2.2: The team's army may be selected as a single force of up to the points limit, or in discrete forces of 3,000pts or multiples thereof.
L2.2.1: Forces must be selected from a single army list, but different forces may make up an army.
L2.3: If the team is made up of forces selected from different army lists, additional units/rules that are normally limited (such as Space Marine Supreme Commanders or Imperial Guard Commissars) must be split as evenly as possible.

+++

L3: Clarifications
L3.1: Due to the size of the game, certain aspects of the gameplay need clarification. These should be discussed prior to setup, in the five-minute warm-up, as normal. In particular:
L3.1.1: Each Supreme Commander in the force allows one re-roll per turn, and can be used on any formation of the army (even one from another force), as long as the target formation is selected from the same army list as the Supreme Commander in question. For example, a Space Marine Supreme Commander (Codex Astartes list) may reroll a failed initiative test for any formation in the army drawn from the Codex Astartes list, regardless of which force it is in; but may not reroll a test for a formation in the army that is drawn from the Steel Legion list.
L3.1.2: War Machines from one force can transport formations from another force in the army, as long as the transported formation is drawn from the same army list.

+++

L4:Deployment
L4.1: Deployment is actioned as per the standard Tournament scenario, with the following alterations:
L4.1.1: Forces may deploy up to 25cm (10in) from the friendly table edge(s).
L4.1.2: For 'corner deployment' on larger tables, the zone should measure 30cm (12in) less than the long table side, the measurements being taken from halfway up the short side to the corner and then along the long side.
L4.1.3: Each team places four objectives. The first three are deployed as per the standard Tournament scenario, while the fourth is placed in your own half, within 30cm (1ft) of the centre of the table, and at least 30cm (1ft) from the table edge and any other objective if possible.

+++

L5: Victory Conditions
L5.1: Victory conditions are checked as per the standard Tournament scenario, except that they are checked at the end of turn 2 onwards.
• A Decisive Victory is achieved from turn 2 onwards if the team has completed at least four victory conditions, and two more than the opposing team.
• A Narrow Victory is achieved in turn 2 if the team has completed at least three victory conditions, and one more than the opposing team.
A Decisive Victory ends the game (barring any celebratory drinks!); while players may choose to play on after a Narrow Victory has been achieved, with the aim of completing a Decisive Victory.

L5.2:
• Strike and Control: Score one objective point for each objective the team controls at the end of each turn. If you control the objective on the opposing team’s table edge you score two objective points. The team with the most objective points at the end of a turn achieves one victory condition. If you have double the opposing team’s objective points or more you achieve two victory conditions.
• Critical targets – demoralise: Identify the opposing team’s three most expensive formations. You achieve one victory condition if any one of these formations is destroyed or any two are below half strength.
• Critical targets – devastate: Identify the opposing team's three most expensive formations. You achieve one victory condition if any two of these formations are destroyed or all three are reduced to less than half strength.
• Seize Ground: You achieve one victory condition if you control more Combat Areas than the opposing team at the end of a turn. You control a Combat Area if it contains an unbroken friendly formation and no unbroken enemy formations. Formations which cross more than one Combat Area count as being in the Combat Area where most of their units are. If this is not clear, the owning team may choose which Combat Area the formation counts as being in (maximum one).
• Giantslayer – You achieve one victory condition if the opposing team has no unbroken formations with a combined starting Damage Capactity of 6 or more remaining on the board.
• Decapitation – You achieve one victory condition if the opposing team has no Supreme Commanders remaining on the board.

+++

+++
Designer's notes
L1.1: The Combat Areas mechanic is intended to reward armies that occupy large areas of the board, and to scale with the size of the board. It will be familiar as table quarters – but these become unwieldy as the table gets larger and larger.
In addition, the Combat Areas mechanic should make it simple for unusual table shapes (such as L- or O- shaped boards) to be used, or to add interest by using an unusual arrangement (such as splitting a 8 x 4ft board into four Combat Areas that stretch right across the table, rather than all meeting in the centre). Similarly, Combat Areas can be a great way to help with deployment of terrain: one Combat Area might house a large town, while another incorporates a defensible ridge or landing pad. In this way, they are intended to help encourage the narrative that adds so much to large games.

Examples of set-up:


L2.1.1: While it may seem counterintuitive to have multiple rare units as Chapter Masters, Warbosses or Avatars of Khaine present on the board, these critical figures may be thought of as particularly capable underlings such as a Captain of the First Company, a particularly ambitious and 'dead cunning' Nob; or as rare individuals that can conjure terrible powers under such apocalyptic scenarios. The Avatar might be rationalised as a Phoenix Lord and his retinue, as a Seer Council manifesting a particularly powerful psychic barrage, or simply as Kaela Mensha Khaine returning time and again to the slaughter! These units offer a great opportunity for making additional centrepiece models, and ensure that the depth of gameplay is not altered by the larger than usual game size[/i]

L2.2.1: A 9,000pt army may be made up in many ways. Example:
• A single combined force: One 9,000pt force from the Ghazghkull Mag Uruk Thraka's War Horde list.
• A number of equal forces: Three 3,000pt forces from the Ghazghkull Mag Uruk Thraka's War Horde list.
• Two uneven forces: a 3,000pt force from the Burning Death Speed Freeks list and a 6,000pt force from the Ghazghkull Mag Uruk Thraka's War Horde list.
Etc.

L2.3: Example: A 9,000pt army is made up of one 3,000pt army selected from the Steel Legion list and one 6000pt army selected from the Codex Astartes list may only select 0–2 Space Marine Supreme Commanders, and will receive six Commissars (one for each 500pts assigned to the Imperial Guard), rather than eighteen (one for each 500pts of the total army limit).[/i]

L3.1: These rules are intended to prevent unusual combinations (such as transporting Eldar Striking Scorpions in a Space Marine Thunderhawk) that are not in the spirit of the background and/or cause imbalances in the army list design structure. They are also intended to reward armies made from a single army list in order to balance out the inherent advantage of combining dissimilar, complimentary army lists, and to simulate the difficulty of managing combined forces.

L5: Large games often take a great deal of time, so the 'Narrow Victory' result is designed to allow the game to come to a conclusion within a reasonable timespan. If time is not an issue, play on to a Decisive Victory result.]

L5.2: Seize Ground encourages multiple small units, while Critical Targets, Giantslayer and Decapitation are intended to encourage the use of multiple large formations and the bigger War Engines.

+++
Change Log:
1.1 – Cleared up some typos, clarified 0–1 limit expansions, rephrased L5.2 objectives wording for clarity.

_________________
Industrious, red-robe wearing member of the PCRC

Excellent, this is looking really good. Hopefully it will achieve the aims you set out, it reads as if it should.

I like the Combat Areas variation on table quarters - as you say, it makes the scenario much more flexible to fit around special terrain or whatever.

The concern I had about Decapitation is reduced by the fact that you can have several supreme commanders.

How would Giantslayer and Decapitation work if (unlikely as it is) one side took no big war engines or supreme commanders?

Thanks – now just to test it out!


The opposing side would automatically gain both objectives, as there are no formations of the appropriate type remaining on the board.

This does mean that a team is at a disadvantage if they don't take such a formation, but I'm happy with that as encouraging the heaviest War Engines (in particular) is a good thing for this particular sort of game, as it adds to the spectacle, and is a great excuse for using models that otherwise don't get an airing. However, I'd be happy to hear dissenting or alternative opinions

DC6 was my suggestion as it's got quite a bit of freedom – a company of super-heavy tanks, a Great Gargant, Warlord etc.
However, are there any army lists that cannot field such a formation?

+++
Actually, rereading the Giantslayer objective, I think that needs rephrasing from:
'• Giantslayer – No unbroken formations with a combined starting Damage Capactity of 6 or more remain on the board.'
to:
'• Giantslayer – The opposing team has no unbroken formations with a combined starting Damage Capactity of 6 or more remaining on the board.'
...otherwise you've got to destroy your own titans!

_________________
Industrious, red-robe wearing member of the PCRC