|
Post by Mark Wightman on Jul 10, 2008 12:04:59 GMT
The one chance to dispel/scroll is fine and something we all appear to be agreed on. But only your paired opponent should be allowed to dispel, otherwise every time a spell targets someone else a player not involved in that paired magic phase would have to be involved (with a discussion regarding who has what dice, number of scrolls yada yada.) 5 - Spells can be targeted on any unit, but army wide spells (Winds of Undeath, Drain Magic etc) can only target your paired army. I don't see the need for this limitation. If you can target specific units that your paired opponent doesn't control you should also be able to target whole armies he doesn't. There is no real complexity in casting Drain Magic, Summon Horde or Winds on other peoples armies. But your two points above don't match. If only the paired opponent can dispel (to cut down cross-pair interaction), which you imply with your first comment, then who gets to dispel the spell when somebody targets their unpaired army? If it's only the paired player then this will seriously slow down the whole phase, as both dispelling players will need to consider what could be targeted at their allies army later in the phase. I can also see a way to break/abuse this with the High Elves. Imagine: HE army A is paired with Vamp B, and HE army C with Vamp D. Army A: 2 x L4, 4 x L2, Banner of Sorcery etc. Army C: Something like 2 x L2 for minimal protection Magic phase starts Army C casts nothing - maybe some single die chucks at Shield of Saphery Army A overwhelms army B in the Magic phase, and finishes it off by casting Drain Magic on both Vamp armies C & D. (When making the second attempt they would be under the +3 also) This situation could be made much worse if the Magic heavy Elf army ends up paired against the Vamp army with the least Magic defense. It's a smaller problem the other way around as I don't think the army wide effects spell is a critical in the Vamp list. Although it's still got to hurt if you can't dispel a spell that's going to damage your army. I think my suggestions covered that. The only other alternative is to treat the magic phase as one. Anybody can target anything, army wide effect pick a target army. Anybody can dispel anything - only one attempt. It would be slower, but not by much I suspect. (I'd still have two power / dispel pools etc)
|
|
|
Post by mike on Jul 10, 2008 12:12:21 GMT
5 - Spells can be targeted on any unit, but army wide spells (Winds of Undeath, Drain Magic etc) can only target your paired army. I don't see the need for this limitation. If you can target specific units that your paired opponent doesn't control you should also be able to target whole armies he doesn't. There is no real complexity in casting Drain Magic, Summon Horde or Winds on other peoples armies. I'm with John on this one Quite frankly restricting this as Mark suggests just looks like a rule merely for the sake of having a rule - always a bad idea IMHO
|
|
|
Post by mike on Jul 10, 2008 12:17:54 GMT
I can also see a way to break/abuse this with the High Elves. Imagine: HE army A is paired with Vamp B, and HE army C with Vamp D. Army A: 2 x L4, 4 x L2, Banner of Sorcery etc. Army C: Something like 2 x L2 for minimal protection Magic phase starts Army C casts nothing - maybe some single die chucks at Shield of Saphery Army A overwhelms army B in the Magic phase, and finishes it off by casting Drain Magic on both Vamp armies C & D. (When making the second attempt they would be under the +3 also) Mark - I disagree entirely with your classification This is not abuse, it's helping out your allies Isn't that what allies are supposed to do? Remember, this would of course take two castings (one on each opposing Vamp army) - the second of which would also be under the +3 penalty
|
|
|
Post by Mark Wightman on Jul 10, 2008 12:52:21 GMT
I can also see a way to break/abuse this with the High Elves. Imagine: HE army A is paired with Vamp B, and HE army C with Vamp D. Army A: 2 x L4, 4 x L2, Banner of Sorcery etc. Army C: Something like 2 x L2 for minimal protection Magic phase starts Army C casts nothing - maybe some single die chucks at Shield of Saphery Army A overwhelms army B in the Magic phase, and finishes it off by casting Drain Magic on both Vamp armies C & D. (When making the second attempt they would be under the +3 also) Mark - I disagree entirely with your classification This is not abuse, it's helping out your allies Isn't that what allies are supposed to do? Remember, this would of course take two castings (one on each opposing Vamp army) - the second of which would also be under the +3 penalty I am sorry, but for me, this would be abuse of a rule intended to speed the game. If it is to be played that way - then I won't be playing.
|
|
|
Post by John on Jul 10, 2008 13:09:13 GMT
I can also see a way to break/abuse this with the High Elves. Imagine: HE army A is paired with Vamp B, and HE army C with Vamp D. Army A: 2 x L4, 4 x L2, Banner of Sorcery etc. Army C: Something like 2 x L2 for minimal protection Magic phase starts Army C casts nothing - maybe some single die chucks at Shield of Saphery Army A overwhelms army B in the Magic phase, and finishes it off by casting Drain Magic on both Vamp armies C & D. (When making the second attempt they would be under the +3 also) This situation could be made much worse if the Magic heavy Elf army ends up paired against the Vamp army with the least Magic defense. This is one possible situation, but not something I am overly worried about. A magic phase can either be seperated or not, if it is seperated the goal is to increase the speed of the phase, and the moment players have to confer outside of their pairing that benefit is negated. Taking your example, and using the rule where the targetted army dispels. If the targetted player has already used up all his dispel dice stopping his paired spells, and then has Drain magic cast on him by another player what can he do. Their are various advantages in splitting magic phases into seperate pairings, and limiting target all spells to one army: 1/ Who is responsible for magic defence is 100% clear. 2/ The magic phases can be run in parrallel saving time. 3/ Teams that contain low magic armies don't punish the magic armies on their side. 4/ Effect all spells have their ability kept under control. The downside is the fact units and armies can be targetted and the controlling player isn't able to stop it. The issue with your proposed solution is that it solves an issue with pairing players by requiring players outside the pairing to be involved. So far I have seen no solution using paired magic phases that doesn't have compromises. But I don't see one single magic phase as a desireable alternative: 1/ It will be slower (factor in discussion of spell orders, who will dispel spells etc and I full expect it to be more than twice the length of two seperate phases). 2/ The system punishes teams made up of lists with verying magic ability. 3/ More dice skews the magic in defences favour, which is hardly very Legendary.
|
|
|
Post by Mark Wightman on Jul 10, 2008 13:35:24 GMT
The downside is the fact units and armies can be targetted and the controlling player isn't able to stop it. Which is an absolute game-breaker for me. Although, it's not that they can't stop it - it's that they can't even try to stop it regardless of how many die or scrolls they have remaining.
|
|
|
Post by John on Jul 10, 2008 14:57:07 GMT
I have no particular preference when it comes to the specific method of solving this issue (just that it should be as fair and clear as possible) but deciding things based on first deployment of the nuclear option rarely leads to a satisfactory conclusion.
I am going to be up in Nottingham next Monday so won't be at the club to discuss the rules in person. Something which is a shame, as generally rules discussion is much easier that way.
- - - Mark, I would like for you to take part in the game but I respect that you may not wish to play with certain rules in place. I should probably have been clearer when starting to organise the game that compromises would be made, so players could be aware of the flexibility it entailed.
I don't think a final solution has been agreed and the rules that may of been used could have not been the ones you would not play, but it seems pointless to continue to plan for a game which likely will not take place and a shame to waste an All Day for it.
- - - Due to the above I would suggest one of the following two solutions: 1/ That instead of one multiplayer game, we simply play a couple of 3.5k games 1v1. 2/ That assuming Mark is ok with it, we look for an alternative fourth for the 20th. And can hopefully arrange a large game on another date we can all play with rules agreed in advance?
Views? Thoughts? Amusing insults and name calling, please feel free to add yours!
|
|
|
Post by Mark Wightman on Jul 10, 2008 16:01:02 GMT
I have no particular preference when it comes to the specific method of solving this issue (just that it should be as fair and clear as possible) but deciding things based on first deployment of the nuclear option rarely leads to a satisfactory conclusion. I'm sorry I went nuclear. The discussion was going nowhere though. Instead we could have spent the next two weeks banging this issue backwards and forwards. But lets face it, Mike wants it one way, I want it another. One of us is going to be unhappy. I was tempted just to walk away earlier, and I still am now. Indeed that might be the simplest solution, since I also don't want Mike to feel pressured into playing with a rule he doesn't think is fair either. Mark, I would like for you to take part in the game but I respect that you may not wish to play with certain rules in place. I should probably have been clearer when starting to organise the game that compromises would be made, so players could be aware of the flexibility it entailed. I don't think a final solution has been agreed and the rules that may of been used could have not been the ones you would not play, but it seems pointless to continue to plan for a game which likely will not take place and a shame to waste an All Day for it. - - - Due to the above I would suggest one of the following two solutions: 1/ That instead of one multiplayer game, we simply play a couple of 3.5k games 1v1. 2/ That assuming Mark is ok with it, we look for an alternative fourth for the 20th. And can hopefully arrange a large game on another date we can all play with rules agreed in advance? Another alternative would be make the game 1 X pt army vs 1 X pt army. Two generals per side (maybe 6000 per side). As I said above, and despite my still preferring to play, perhaps it is easiest if you replace me. Let me know one way or the other though, so I can make arrangements to play something else if need be.
|
|
|
Post by mike on Jul 10, 2008 16:38:44 GMT
I think half the problem here is that we are getting too fixated on the magic phase - after all, many of these arguments are equally as valid in the shooting and combat phases.
For example, in shooting phase I might choose to unleash by bolt throwers on a unit of ghouls that are getting a little too close to my ally's spearmen - is this helping out an ally or abusing the spirit of the game?
The argument is further complicated be the possibility of unequal armies but an equal battle.
That's gonna take some explaining: Imagine 3.5k High Elves allied with 1500 Empire - total 5k Against these are ranged 3k Dark Elves and 2k Orcs - agian total 5k
Now, whoever the HE "nominated opponent" (for want of a better term) is, they are going to have spare resources. A significant portion of this is likely to be magic (in the form of unused PD).
It just seems unrealist to me that the HE wouldn't use this excess capacity to aid their Empire allies, who are of course going to by outnumbered by their nominated opponent. And, given the inequity the Empire are facing, would most like use the most powerful spells they can get aware with.
So Drain Magic on the Empire's opponents just makes sense.
|
|
|
Post by Mark Wightman on Jul 10, 2008 17:09:20 GMT
Why are you banging on about unequal forces and the like? We were talking about 2 HE armies vs 2 Vamp armies, all four armies at 3.5k.
|
|
|
Post by John on Jul 10, 2008 17:34:38 GMT
How about we play the game as two linked individual 3.5k games, set the tables up together with the Vamps back to back ambushed by the High Elves who come from opposite sides. That way you still get the larger scale, but without any of the rules headache that is making a 1v1 game a 1&1v1&1 game? - - - I had originally hoped to use rules in this game which would work regardless of number of players, size of forces and other considerations. A solution which relies on our specific forces and size of those forces wouldn't automatically be much use in other situations (and I'd like to try and have something that would tried out). I think Mike is also looking at the issue in a similar way. Obviously this is an area I am interested in, and would love to debate to tedious lengths but I suggest we settle on the simplified solution for this weekend, at least that way we solve the biggest issue: Ensuring we have a good time kicking the nuts out of each others armies
|
|
|
Post by Mark Wightman on Jul 10, 2008 18:00:48 GMT
Hmm . . .
Starting to feel a little ganged up on.
What's your view, Steve?
|
|
|
Post by ralkr56 on Jul 10, 2008 23:20:37 GMT
Strewth thought this was meant to be a relaxing hobby, it is getting more complicated than most of my sales and marketing meetings How about 3 players a side. 1 overall general (as we are playing HE and VC they are the High Mage general for the elves and the Lord Necromancer for the VC) and then 2 sub generals in charge of 3500 points of troops each. The overall generals would authorize the order of charges (if any) their sub commanders want to do to avoid any conflicts and overlaps, they then do them in the agreed order. Then they do normal moves simultaneously for their turn. They then ask their overall general for Magic support and the overall generals run the whole magic phase for their whole side verses the opposite overall commander. The sub commanders then do their normal shooting and melees simultaneously whilst the overall generals plot their next moves? This should remove all the issues on who responds to what spells with what and will allow the battle to flow across the whole table. We know this process works when we do the big Fantasy battles using PK and I am sure we get a third player a side before the 20th? I would suggest that the overall commanders are the most experienced warhammer players - John and Mark - but depends on peoples preferences? The overall commanders could also have a reserve force of say 1000 points and give their sub commander 3000 points each.
|
|
|
Post by mike on Jul 11, 2008 12:38:54 GMT
Steve
That of course would work fine, but it's not quite what we're driving at - or at best it's only a subset.
Unless I'm reading your post wrong, you seem to be talking about two very large opposing armies with more that one player on each side.
What I'm trying to hammer out (and I think John is too) is a ruleset that works for allied armies - and not necessarily two on each side, but possibly three or more.
We're looking for a system robust enough to handle (for example) High Elves + Wood Elves + Empire vs. Dark Elves + Orcs & Goblins.
Your suggestion works extremely well in the special case where there are only two races on the table, but if there are more than this it simply won't wash - if only because certain races may work well together while insisting upon their own autonamy. (Dark Elves, for example, might well ally with an Orc army but I really can't see them taking orders from an Orc chieftain.)
|
|
|
Post by Mark Wightman on Jul 11, 2008 13:23:56 GMT
Steve What I'm trying to hammer out (and I think John is too) is a ruleset that works for allied armies - and not necessarily two on each side, but possibly three or more. We're looking for a system robust enough to handle (for example) High Elves + Wood Elves + Empire vs. Dark Elves + Orcs & Goblins. That's what you are looking for. I was looking for some rules we could use for our game next weekend - which we know was going to be 2 x HE vs 2 x VC all at 3.5k pts. I didn't think the plan was for us to playtest your ideas for rules for big battles. Had I known that, I'd not have signed up. If that's the plan - then I'm out. Sorry, John. I didn't realise that was the plan.
|
|