|
|
Post by ralkr56 on Apr 21, 2009 16:22:51 GMT
Lets do it all again.
It may not count for the club shield this year but Auctorati is back.
There will be some changes to the scoring this year but apart from that rules will be pretty much the same as last year EXCEPT no special characters will be allowed for any army lists.
I expect to run two leagues with final play offs again due to the popularity. The key dates are.
You must submit (on the blog, or to me personally at the club or at Campaign etc) by midnight on 10th May the type of the Army you intend using. e.g. Dark elves, Lizardmen etc.
The full army list must be be submitted and approved between 10th May and 30th June.
Army lists must comply with the current as of TODAY (21st April 2009) rules, official errata, and any official FAQ clarifications and the current published army book supplements.
The leagues, game maps etc will be announced on 6th July and games can then start by mutual arrangement.
|
|
|
|
Post by Matt on Apr 22, 2009 9:30:59 GMT
May I make a suggestion. That being the use of Special Features. These were used in the Doubles Tournement games at the weekend and they actually made for some interesting games.
Just a suggestion but it would make things more interesting than just a straight forward pitched battle.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stephen Mawson on Apr 22, 2009 10:08:01 GMT
I really would rather you didn't, I don't particularly like the special features, I think they don't particularly add anything good to a game.
In addition the special features rules favour some armies more than others, anyone who is more close combat oriented or is quick moving has a better chance of securing features. Also some of the special features are a lot better than others, which means that if you roll good ones that scatter towards you it can tip the battle in your favour.
|
|
|
|
Post by Matt on Apr 22, 2009 10:45:51 GMT
I think they make you play differently - agreed. AND yes you're right they do benefit some armies more. BUT if you know they're going to be used you would plan your list and tactics accordingly.
Makes it slighlty different than just lining up opposite each other and charging. Even if you don't benefit from the power of the special feature you'd still get the vistory points. Most of the special features at the weekend didn't benefit our army at all, but they did force us to move and take the objectives. Much in the same way as objectives were introduced to 40K.
We had some good games at the weekend fighting over objectives when neither army was getting much benefit from the powers they offered.
Stephen what do you suggest we do rather than just straight pitched battles or are you happy playing six pitched battles on the trot?
|
|
|
|
Post by Matt on Apr 22, 2009 10:47:28 GMT
Of course Steve is Oberlord when it comes to this anyway so I bow to his all conquering power ;D
I'm still up for it - just need to decide what army to use.
|
|
|
|
Post by ralkr56 on Apr 22, 2009 10:52:11 GMT
I had considered making the games objective orientated this year but rejected that for broadly the same reason Steve M gives - it would favour some armies and be tricky to make it fair to everyone who wants to play.
I do have some plans to make the terrain maps more challenging and perhaps less random and in the scoring I make remove some elements e.g. Table quarter points I think is a bit cheesy - especially for undead armies! I did think about increasing points for killing the opposing general but again this would favour certain armies - especially daemons.
In short keep the suggestions and ideas coming as rules are not yet finalised.
How about a handicap system?
|
|
|
|
Post by John on Apr 22, 2009 11:20:55 GMT
There will be some changes to the scoring this year but apart from that rules will be pretty much the same as last year EXCEPT no special characters will be allowed for any army lists. Can I ask why you feel the warhammer rules need changing to remove special characters from the Auctorati? It's your call, but I generally prefer to play the game rather than some house ruled version of it. Is there something about the hero level special characters I am missing? They certainly haven't had much effect on the past two years and plenty of none special options *cough*Hydras*cough* are far better for there points than hero special characters. - - - Terrain. Can we see what the maps look like before we write armies this time? Over the last couple of events there have been some pretty odd boards which have really hurt some players. I think features like a river down the centre of a board (in the last Auctori) probably "favour some armies" far more than special features do. - - - Scoring. Again it's your call but I suggest being very careful about modifying the scoring system too greatly. Table quarters are in the scores to encourage players not field pure gunline or deathstar (one big unit) lists. |
|
|
|
Post by Matt on Apr 22, 2009 11:34:10 GMT
What sort of handicap system did you have in mind?
|
|
|
|
Post by John on Apr 22, 2009 11:45:27 GMT
What sort of handicap system did you have in mind? Make Mark down 3 pints before deployment... |
|
|
|
Post by Mark Wightman on Apr 22, 2009 12:14:03 GMT
There will be some changes to the scoring this year but apart from that rules will be pretty much the same as last year EXCEPT no special characters will be allowed for any army lists. Can I ask why you feel the warhammer rules need changing to remove special characters from the Auctorati? It's your call, but I generally prefer to play the game rather than some house ruled version of it. Is there something about the hero level special characters I am missing? They certainly haven't had much effect on the past two years and plenty of none special options *cough*Hydras*cough* are far better for there points than hero special characters. I'm not a fan of the SC's. There's only a couple of the Hero level ones that are a problem and most of them are in the Demons book (Blue Scribes, Masque) - which wasn't published before the cut-off last year. My problem with them is that they are generally under costed for what they do, or represent a hero that couldn't be built legally from the normal section. Mannfred is a good example of this - but perhaps not the worst. They are just another advantage for the newer army books that they don't really need. |
|
|
|
Post by Mark Wightman on Apr 22, 2009 12:15:27 GMT
What sort of handicap system did you have in mind? Make Mark down 3 pints before deployment... As long as I don't have to buy them . . .  |
|
|
|
Post by Stephen Mawson on Apr 22, 2009 12:19:52 GMT
I'm actually happy playing six pitched battles straight, that's not an issue for me.
If I was playing the same opponent with the same army repeatedly I'd want some additional variety, but since we're not I find the games offer enough variation as it is.
In terms of markers it's not so much the powers, so much as the +100 vps/-100 vps.
Anyone who is playing an army that is not designed to grind your opponent out existance in close combat will find it harder to take and hold objectives. This disadvantages any army which tends to rely on shooting or magic as much or more than close combat punch.
I don't have a problem with the hero level special characters either, I can't think of one off the top of my head that is any more unbalanced than what you can easily do with the normal character.
I'd also quite like to know what the terrain will be before I design my army. But as far as maps go I'd just like them to adhere to the standard warhammer rules, i.e no terrain features within 12" of the centre of the table. Personally I'd rather not have any rivers either as they just have to much of an effect on the way a game works out.
While I'm at it I don't really see why people should have to commit themselves to an army nearly 2 months before the final deadline for army list submission. I don't really see what possible difference it'll make as you're not going to do the selection for who is in which league until after all the lists are submitted anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mark Wightman on Apr 22, 2009 12:20:50 GMT
I do have some plans to make the terrain maps more challenging and perhaps less random and in the scoring I make remove some elements e.g. Table quarter points I think is a bit cheesy - especially for undead armies! I did think about increasing points for killing the opposing general but again this would favour certain armies - especially daemons. In short keep the suggestions and ideas coming as rules are not yet finalised. How about a handicap system? I think you need to keep the points for table quarters for pitched battles - I'd change it so that raised units cannot claim or contest them though. Handicap system? The Aussies us a composition system, which penalizes the strong armies: VC, Demons etc - but it's a can-of-worms. You can still make an abusive army, it just needs to be stealth abuse :-) |
|
|
|
Post by mike on Apr 22, 2009 12:41:52 GMT
OK, just to put my tw'pennyworth in
Scoring and Table Quarters
Scoring table quarters is possibly one of the must unbalancing aspects of the victory point system.
It certainly disadvantages armies with the more expensive points cost per figure (all the elf variants immediately come to mind) and those who move relatively slowly (like dwarves). And it's interesting to note that dwarves actually take a double hit on this.
Furthermore, armies that can magically generate a brand new unit during play (say in turn 6) can use it to grab a few freebie victory points (**cough** vampire counts **cough**).
So I say -- take 'em out and be done with it
Special Features
Steve M made some valid points on this and I cannot disagree.
However, I think the problems he highlights are largely to do with the way in which they are used at Rushden (and before anybody jumps on me, I really don't remember what the rule book says about them so I can't comment on that).
Just to clarify, the Rushden rules involve setting them up in the middle of the table and rolling scatter dice to see where they end up, with the proviso that your own marker must scatter into your opponents side of the table.
The type of feature is also generated randomly (roll a d6 and that's the one you get), so its powers may not help you at all.
My point is, we don't have to do it that way
So, how about this?
First, you choose your special feature, so you get one that benefits your army. In effect, the feature becomes part of your army build.
Then, in the deployment phase, you place your marker anywhere on the table you like (including, if you so wish, inside your own deployment zone so that you get the benefit).
You could also put in a victory point bonus for capturing your opponents marker if you like, but I don't think that's strictly neccesary.
Handicap System
Tempting as the idea is, I'm inclined to shy away from it -- if only to avoid the (probably never-ending) argument over which armies should be penalised and by how much.
|
|
|
|
Post by mike on Apr 22, 2009 12:47:27 GMT
I'm not a fan of the SC's. There's only a couple of the Hero level ones that are a problem and most of them are in the Demons book (Blue Scribes, Masque) - which wasn't published before the cut-off last year. Very simple -- ban demons (they're overpowered anyway) ;D ;D |
|
