Over the last few years within the UK scene we've seen the rise of what i would term '1 turn' armies, which effectively max out off board deployments (Via either air or portals) and completely ignore the first 2 turns of the game. While effective, this really isn't much fun for either player given you're then just playing a 1 turn of the game rather than 3 or 4. I'd like to propose an alternative scenario that could be used as one of the scenarios at an event rather than just using the standard 'Grand Scenario' for each game. As a work in progress name i'm calling it the 'Accumulator Grand Scenario'.

The scenario deploys the same as the standard Grand Scenario, so each player deploys a blitz, and two objectives in the opponents half of the board, and deploys on 15cm. Garrisons and scouting are also allowed as normal.

Objectives however are scored differently, being scored each round. An objective in your own half is worth 1 point, with the objectives you've placed in your opponents half being worth 2 points, and the blitz being worth 4. You can also get a further point for 'none shall pass' each turn, and destroying someone's BTS is worth 4 points. As with the standard Grand Scenario, objectives can be captured by a unit which has a stand within 15cm, and can be contested by an opposing stand, at which point the objective scores no points.

The game results are based on not total VP's, but the VP difference. If a player extends a lead of 10 points at the end of any turn they automatically win the game with maximum points. If there is no clear winner by the end of turn 4, points will be decided by a sliding scale. So for instance, a difference of 0-1 points would be a straight draw, 2-3 would be a 18-14 draw, etc.

I would also propose a few amendments to the normal rules in relation to objective contesting and scoring:
1. Only 1 objective can be scored or contested by a single unit (so no single units of scouts holding everything).
2. The only exception to the above would be single DC6 and above war engines, which can contest all objectives in range, but can still only capture 1.
3. Units under half strength can only contest, not capture objectives.


This scenario would hopefully discourage people from taking quite as skewed armies, as you'd have to be able to compete in the Alternate Scenario as well as the standard Grand Scenario, and hopefully also freshen up some of the games.

If there's any interest, it would be great to hear some feedback from anyone trying it out

This is something that I proposed for Dominion, the 3mm scifi game. We've been testing it and it works well in that system, IMO.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

It should also counteract the way that objectives only really mean anything until turn 3. I like the way that it would make objectives more relevant throughout the game

i cannot possibly agree any harder and fervently than i am already. spot on. [looks for the like button]

_________________
He's a lawyer and a super-villian. That's like having a shark with a bazooka!

-I HAVE NO POINT
-Penal Legion-Fan list
-Help me make Whitescars not suck!

I think this is a very good idea and was very much the same thinking behind the alternative scenario we used at the Exeter tournament this year.

IJW and i were not particularly targeting one type of army, more trying to shake up the meta a little which has resulted from a relatively stable set of army lists and a single scenario for all 3 games (though admittedly a very good scenario).

IJW was able to bring his experience of writing scenarios and running many tournaments for Infinity, where not only are a range of different scenarios run throughout a tournament but the pool of scenarios is updated each year. The breadth of the Infinity Tournament System is certainly beyond the scope of a game run by volunteers, though the tiny bit of variety from one game seemed to prompt people to modifying their lists at Exeter, and got a lot of positive feedback from players.

Looking at your proposal, i would have concerns that the rules on half-strength formations *might* skew slightly too far in favour of “big formation” armies and penalise armies like eldar or even ground marines. In the exeter scenario comparing number of units, rather than formations determined who held objectives (very much pinched from AoS). Therefore pop-corn armies could still compete by using multiple formations. In testing we found hoard armies tended to do well early on, with others clawing points back later. The flaw was large DC transports - we though that fear of shadowswords would put people off camping inside the transport, but krieg (and as steve pointed out - ferrals) have transports to spare. If we run it again only on board infantry would count.

I like the victory being on margin of points scored, which would help solve the hardest part we found to balance - how to tie the points in game to the overall tournament points.

The exeter group would be very keen to playtest any proposals.


Sent using Tapatalk

8th ed 40K has a number of scenarios that score objectives each round, and I rather like them.

I'd be concerned about war engines not being able to control more than one objective (and only the truly large ones even being able to contest multiple), as this will severely handicap AMTL. From what I gather they aren't exactly considered a dominant army in most circles.

Richard, I like it. Happy to give you a test game if you fancy? For what its worth, I wouldn't go with the half strength rule as it disadvantages smaller more fragile armies who don't want to put units on the board. But happy to test. Noisy makes a good point about AMTL too.

Blip, with your mission the change I'd make is going back to 4 turns rather than 3 which gives non-horde armies the chance to whittle down their more cumbersome horde opponents. I was really up for trying Dark Eldar at that event until it dropped to 3 turns at which point Krieg were a no-brainier.

_________________

I'll pitch it to Dave and see if he's up for giving it a try sometime

None of it's set in stone currently or anything, so the idea would be to tweak it after a bit of playtesting

I had considered making DC8 war engines (i.e. gargants and Warlords etc) be able to hold multiple objectives rather than just contest, but was wondering if this would start making things a bit too complicated.

It's worth noting that even in AMTL you don't have to take a 4-5 activation army. It's quite possible to take something like 8 activations if you have a few warhounds and suchlike in the force. The point (as mentioned above) is if anything to shake up army lists rather than cater to what everyone's currently taking

Oh, and Steve - happy to give you a game at some point, i'll see if we can get something arranged over the next 2-3 weeks perhaps

Like it Rich. Ironically enough Nat, Duncan, Glyn and myself were discussing this exact scoring principle on the way home too.
Happy to give it a run out down here and feed back.

Cheers
Reedar


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Firstly a clarification: do you intend BTS points to accumulate per turn also, or just the ground-holding objectives and they shall not pass? i.e. if the BTS is critted out of the sky in turn one, does it cost you 4 points or 16?

Anyway a couple of thoughts I had about the scenario:

1. At first glance I would be reticent to take defensively focussed armies. There are basically 4 points available in your own half, and 8 in your opponent's (plus the difference in what you deny them). There is a very strong incentive to get forward and onto the objectives (which you yourself place, making it as hard as possible for your opponent to defend them).

2. My first thought is to still pick a very fast, probably air-mobile, engagement army. This is because the swing in points is quite large per objective (i.e. capturing one is worth 3 to 5 points net) but there are a large number of points available so they all should be defended. Thus if you are a ground force without reserves, you will need to divert more forces to defend against air assaults in every turn (i.e. more than currently), whilst giving away the area you intend to attack in setup or turn 1. This is a double benefit for a more mobile army, which can setup objectives to force the defenders to split up but deploy their own according to where the enemy is headed whilst picking where to attack. This is a greater effect than in the GT scenario - currently I find that armies without reserves such as guard or 'nids will frequently ignore an objective in each half, concentrating on the blitz objectives and one of the TnHs. This because all you need to do to deny the opponent 2 of the 5 VCs is contest two objectives in your own half.

3. Likewise, an air-mobile army has a realistic chance of building up 6-7 points in turn 1 by capturing objectives in the opponent's table half - garrisons are either too slow (infantry) or weedy (scouts) to do this offensively. Doing this will get you over halfway to a win already, and your opponent is only going to be able to prevent it by stuffing them with big high-armour infantry garrison formations (attacker chooses a no-cover location), or having mounted fast firefight formations of their own that are capable of engaging directly from the deployment zone. This would be quite cool to see though.

Anyway that's enough BS theory, am interested to hear what others report back.

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

Kal ran an objective weighted tourney at Cold Wars. Hopefully he will add his experience.

_________________
mattie
http://maashes.blogspot.com/

Taking BTS would give you 4 points in the turn you destroyed it only, so there would be a maximum of 4 points available for that objective. Off board wouldn't count other than in turn 4 (i.e. Necron warrior bts broken and phased out at the end of the game)

In terms of defence vs offence, i'd point out that if you're holding your own objectives, your opponent isn't scoring much in the way of points either! The scenario does however encourage you to get off your deployment line and get involved in the game right from the word go.

Air assault armies are certainly just as viable, but i would point out a few things:
1. You can still contest the objectives they go for.
2. You can still go for the objectives in their half - they can't be everywhere at once!
3. If they don't win in that turn, they're then on the ground for you to actually fight in later turns.

It's certainly possible to win in a single turn under this scenario, but to do so the opponent would have to basically ignore everything. Given it's the VP difference that counts, taking a couple of objectives on the opponents half balances out any benefits from an early assault quite a bit.

Really like the idea, I think it will re-balance the lists and add some new life to the game.
I know new players really struggle with the victory conditions and the whole turn three / four objective rush.

My only concern is the impact the garrisoning rule may have. Will we see armies with loads of scouts having a field day?

Only time well tell.....

On an unrelated topic, anyone know where I can buy 100 Space Marine Scouts?

I like the idea; I'll see if I can get a game in to test it.


You can get 80 for £14 here:
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/smal ... /updates/3