I am currently getting a list together based on an idea I had for a force that I would like to try out.

Now without getting into specifics, I have the background story with this force always taking a Core element onto a table. This core element is about 1500 points worth and consists of about 4-5 formations.

I was interested in your views on what you would think if 1500 points of a force were already made for you and you could add the extra X points to build it up to the value you wished to play?

The whole idea was to keep true to the background idea I have for the force, yet also giving the player only a certain breadth to modify the force - although the modifications/upgrades available would effect the style of play.

Would people even consider playing such a list if it provided something new?

I think this is a logical outgrowth of the Core/Support dichotomy in most Epic forces. THe only thing I can see being a problem would be at very low and very high points levels, where the variability would create pedictable (low) and extremely varied (high) armies. I would be interested in hearing more details on this idea.

Also, whether you could amass the "average" 10 formations with the final 1500 points...

I think I made a mistake with the initial core.

The initial 1500 points would be 6 formations.

The list is designed to be played between 1500 and 3000 points, as I rarely expect games to be played above that.

I am surpriosed that the first two posts are actually open to the idea as I expected immediate rejection. That is good to see.

While it is story based, the restriction also does help to minimize the min/max factor that happens when lists are tested. At 6 formations for 1500 points, there is a potential for up to 13 activations (just off the top of my head). I would place this in the acceptable range of activations.

I am deciding on core choices for the list at the moment. I will get it out once I run it through a few test lists and late night discussions. Always interested to hear thoughts on the design principle while this is being done as well.

Can I put in a view of being undecided ?

I honestly have no idea how practical or feasible this is until I read some detail about how such a list would work in practice, so I will try to keep an open mind, and reserve judgement until you've put some more flesh on the bones.

_________________

And here is a response from LeannonRuss via email:



Just to keep it real...

Doesn't really seem that interesting to me - the method of restricting choices seems pretty arbitrary, for one. And it doesn't scale well, as mentioned.

Without knowing about the list in question I really can't see the point.

All good points, and I think I am just going to go along with the list as standard.

It is an idea that is probably best suited to a specific scenario.

Scenario gaming... I wonder how much that happens in epic...?

Im not sure about scenario gaming so much but it sounds like an interesting idea for a set campaign. Give players a core 'historical' army block for the campaign and let them fluff it out a bit to personal preference/model availability.

I would certainly not be totally opposed to it if done well.

_________________
AFK with real life, still checking PMs

FB, why don't you just explicitly explain your concept so people can get a firmer grasp of what you're trying to achieve. What's the *reason* for this approach? Give a firm example, even using a current list as a stand-in.

Amongst friends? It happens a lot! Amongst pick-up gamers in a club/pub? Probably not a lot at all.

And "scenario gaming" can cover a pretty wide swath: from "alternate setup/victory conditions" to "historic re-fights", all of which can be quite different experiences.

For the former, check out some of the EPIC: Total War stuff! (Still repairing the damage from the server crash!)

Hmm intruiging idea. So in summary, each race is given a standard 1500 point list (or maybe 2-3 such standard lists), and then uses a further x points to provide a number of additional formations. Ok, here is a slight modification which may add a little more spice - though please note I have not tried this.

Why not provide variable numbers of objectives while still using the 'tournament' objective rules as follows:-

Both sides start with the Blitz objective and a 'minimum' force of 1500 points. Each player may secretly choose to have a bigger army.
• Up to 2200 points they must also deploy a 'Take and hold' objective in the opponent's half of the table as usual
• Up to 3000 points they must also deploy two T&H objective as usual
• Standard victory conditions apply. However, where a '1' objective army faces a '3' objective opponent, the smaller army is automatically awarded '1' victory point for 'foolhardy bravery' to redress the balance.

As an aside, TRC suggested trying out a variant on the three game tournament using a 2000 point army n a 4'x4' table for Game #1, supplementing this with a 700 point force for Game #2 and using an additional 300 point supplement for game #3. When we tried this it did produce a couple of really intense 2000 point games. A really enjoyable eye-opener and pleasant change from the 'standard' 3000 point bash.

Agreed, 2000pt games can often be fast and furious, and with so small forces, making even a single mistake can spell your doom!

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter