I find many big battles go to ties because of the time involved and space limitations. Not sure about you but I find it frustrating. Still, looks like a good time.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.

Thanks all for the comments.



Yes, it was a bit of a pity not to have a winner after 6 hours of play - but it was fun nonetheless.

Another thing that seems to make it harder to get a winner in big games is the fact that the BTS is usually something HUGE and therefore very hard to kill. In this game the BTSs were a Warlord titan and an ork warband with 26 units in hard cover. Neither looked at all vulnerable.

We made a mistake (as the orks) by putting too much in the middle. We got the blitz, but didn't have enough to really challenge for many of the other objectives.

The scenario itself may have made it harder to get a winner. The aim was to make the central blitz the most important thing in the battle, but not the only thing worth fighting for. This didn't quite work, as the marines were able to effectively let us have the blitz and take the fight elsewhere.

I think if I was going to play the scenario again I would keep the tweak about only needing the two objectives in your own half to claim "Defend the Flag" but get rid of the change to "Take and Hold" so that this goal could be claimed by holding the blitz and one other (I promise this isn't because it would have made it easier for the orks to win )

This would mean that the central blitz was crucial - if you held that you would have one goal and be close to getting Take and Hold as well. But it's not all or nothing, as the side that doesn't hold the blitz still has a way to win through Defend the Flag and Take and Hold (BTS and They Shall Not Pass as well of course, but they seem hard in big games).

Thanks for the report! Very comprehensive job.

I agree it was a shame to be tied at 1-1 after a whole day's gaming, but it was an excellent game all the same.

I think some modifications to objectives would be a good idea for large games. Given the number of formations, I think it's a good point that TSNP becomes a bit irrelevant/impossible. BTS is easy to block by having massive formations, as we demonstrated, and it also makes less sense as the BTS is now a far smaller proportion of the army (10-15% by points rather than the normal 20-30%). It almost makes sense to remove these two entirely and add a couple of extra, or modified, objectives.

On the other hand, I think keeping to an almost-standard scenario is the best plan when planning a big game... there's no real way to playtest it, and the last thing you want is to get 6 hours in and then realise there a fundamental flaw.

A couple of thoughts from this game, however, would be:

• Remove TSNP. No real chance of anyone getting it or trying to.
• Add more point objectives - for example, add the central objective we used in this game but keep the blitz objectives
• BTS as it stands could either be too easy or too hard, depending on army composition. If the Marine army hadn't had a Warlord, say, it would've been almost guaranteed. So maybe modify it to require, say, 2 of the 3 most expensive units be destroyed, or even an army-wide, "half of all units must be destroyed" (though that happens anyway in most games I reckon...).

Was a fun day of toy soldiers.

I agree that the central Blitz was a none starter, especially when the 2 gargants stomped that way!

Great write up, some great photos too - it could have been very messy had the warlord titan stomped up the middle of the board too

_________________
Web Designer / Developer type | erinfreeman.co.uk
Harass me on twitter!

Great models and terrain !!!!!! Where'd you get piece with fallen idol/statue head ?

_________________
Legion 4 "Cry Havoc, and let slip the Dogs of War !" ... "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

I agree and I like these ideas. Some aspects of the normal tournament scenario start to creak a bit in big games - I'd definitely like to see someone work out a similar but modified scenario for games in the 5k to 10k range, to make them as decisive and exciting as 3k games usually are. I know there are the Megageddon rules, but they seem to be for really massive multi-table games.



Really sorry, I can't remember. I bought it at a wargames show - I have a bit of an addiction to going to shows and browsing the stalls for interesting looking terrain. I'll keep an eye out at the next one I go to and let you know if I come across the same seller again.

That would have been a sight to see

Maybe we only need one special rule for next time - "Titans and Gargants must deploy exactly opposite each other"

Loved reading your report! You've got a nice little city going there.

Here's one of the few pics I took during the battle, this is that defining moment when the marching gargant opened fire and decimated a death company and part of a tactical detachment..

_________________
Web Designer / Developer type | erinfreeman.co.uk
Harass me on twitter!

Great photo!

Indeed! Very dramatic!

And the death company were all like "yeah, it's a gargant on the double, what's that gona do..."

Fantastic report, with some beautiful models and cool terrain


Inspired by this report in particular, I've opened a discussion on this subject, along with a draft scenario here:
Large Battle Scenario

If you'd like to try it out, or simply join the discussion, that'd be brill

_________________
Industrious, red-robe wearing member of the PCRC