|
Post by John on Jul 11, 2008 13:37:59 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 think I'll change this from a suggestion to a statement Sunday 20th's large game will be played as seperate 1v1 games with a linked theme / scenario.If anyone isn't interested in the above then let the others know. - - - As I said earlier, although I am interested in finding a system that will work in any situation it is very apparent that this is not something that will be agreed in time for the game. My main priority is getting a big game or Warhammer in, and theirs no point compromising that over a secondary concern.
|
|
|
Post by ralkr56 on Jul 11, 2008 13:43:37 GMT
I agree with mark I thought we were looking to do a one off big game for Sunday the 20th not work on a new rule set based on warhammer armies.
Sounds like Mark has pulled out and this is off so suggest we plan something else each for Sunday and revisit this over a curry and beer face to face sometime.
|
|
|
Post by mike on Jul 11, 2008 13:56:42 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 think I'll change this from a suggestion to a statement Sunday 20th's large game will be played as seperate 1v1 games with a linked theme / scenario.If anyone isn't interested in the above then let the others know. - - - As I said earlier, although I am interested in finding a system that will work in any situation it is very apparent that this is not something that will be agreed in time for the game. My main priority is getting a big game or Warhammer in, and theirs no point compromising that over a secondary concern. Agreed - let's just have a punch-up on the 20 th as suggested and hammer out the more general rules at a later date And Steve - sortng that out over beer and curry sounds like an eminently civilised idea to me - let's do that sometime
|
|
|
Post by mike on Jul 15, 2008 10:59:06 GMT
Hi people
Lost the thread of this a little - not sure what's happening
Are we going to have a big game or not? I certainly hope so - I was kinda looking forward to it
I can manage 3.5k of high elves and Steve is talking about 3.5k of dark elves, so there's the core of a big game right there
John, are you still in? If so, what can you manage?
Mark seems to have bowed out - pity
Anybody else in? If so, feel free to bring along whatever you've got - the more the merrier I say
|
|
|
Post by John on Jul 15, 2008 13:05:18 GMT
Hi Guys,
I've been afk for the last few days getting in plenty of Wargaming. My Vamps won all 3 games at the tournament on Sunday and we had a great 16k a side 40k game on the Monday.
I'm still hoping to attend on Sunday, and as long as others want to take part would like to get a big Warhammer game in, even done as two seperate games with a linked theme. At the moment I don't know whether Steve or Mark want to take part in the big seperate games, so if either of you are reading this and could let us know that'd be great.
John
|
|
|
Post by Mark Wightman on Jul 15, 2008 13:47:38 GMT
I've got a bit confused about this too. Here's where I stand though.
I don't want to play a large 2 vs 2 (3.5k / army) game with the magic rules proposed.
However, I would also be happy just playing a single game, either linked to another or not. How would people propose we link them?
I'd also be happy playing a couple of 1.5k games. I've yet another list for the club comp to try out :-)
|
|
|
Post by John on Jul 15, 2008 13:56:10 GMT
Mark: Plan was to play 2x 3.5k games, Put the Vamps back to back (seperate boards) being ambushed by the High Elves.
|
|
|
Post by Mark Wightman on Jul 15, 2008 14:04:48 GMT
Can the games effect one another?
|
|
|
Post by John on Jul 15, 2008 14:32:11 GMT
I wasn't intending to have any interaction, due to lack of time I was hoping to keep it simple and none controversial.
|
|
|
Post by mike on Jul 15, 2008 16:29:05 GMT
Mark: Plan was to play 2x 3.5k games, Put the Vamps back to back (seperate boards) being ambushed by the High Elves. I wasn't intending to have any interaction, due to lack of time I was hoping to keep it simple and none controversial. Sorry John, but those two statments don't quite gel If the two Vamp armies are deemed to be back-to-back they are on the same terrain (even if they are on seperate tables), and this means interaction of some kind is more or less inevitable - the basic realities of the universe decree that this is so. This effects both sides. The rear ranks of both Vamp armies could well be valid targets for HE bolt throwers. Also Vamp spellcasters might well be able to raise units in either army (not sure of this - I don't know the exact rules regarding Vamp magic). Similairly, units leaving the Vamp side of one table would arrive on the Vamp side of the other, which might, for example, make for some unusual tactics by HE cavalry. While this is all this is very interesting, I'm not at all sure it's what you had in mind. The only way around this is declare that there is a large enough gap between the two vamp armies are far enough apart that this cannot happen, in which case you no loger have one game - you have two seperate games. If that's what you want, fine, but this has to be clear from the outset. So the question becomes: Are we running one big game, in which interaction is almost inevitable however it's set up, or two smaller games?
|
|
|
Post by John on Jul 16, 2008 10:13:10 GMT
I don't know Seperate Boards and No Interaction seem like compatible concepts to me and in either case the key point is "no Interaction" the games will be linked in narrative but in no other way. Thus it is two seperate 3.5k games, simply using positioning of boards and armies to approximate a sense of a larger scale battle. I would like to play a large interactive game at some point (especially as I have a 10k 2v2 Warhammer game planned in Nottingham for November) but this should probably be planned after we have agreed rules that everyone is willing to use, and had curry which I much anticipate.
|
|
|
Post by Mark Wightman on Jul 16, 2008 10:44:32 GMT
I've been chatting to Steve via IM regarding this and I think it might be best if John and Mike play each other @ 3.5k. Steve and I will then play a couple of 1.5k games (both of us are still testing armies for the comp). Anybody else who wants to bring along an army would be welcome to join us. Assuming we get an even number of players we should be OK. I think Barry will be bringing his Orcs & Goblins, so he would be a 3rd/5th. Not sure if there's anybody else. Maybe Dave - not sure what his plans are.
We can then sort out some larger game rules over a curry sometime soon.
|
|
|
Post by mike on Jul 16, 2008 10:52:57 GMT
OK - Sounds like a plan
I had hoped for a big multi-player game, but it's clear we're not going to resolve the rules issues by Sunday
So John, I'll see you Sunday for a 3.5k game
And I'm definately up for sorting out the multi-player rules over a curry
|
|
|
Post by John on Jul 16, 2008 10:59:14 GMT
Ok Mike 3.5k should still be two sizeable forces. I know I have a new unit on the build for it
|
|
|
Post by Stephen Mawson on Jul 16, 2008 13:24:46 GMT
It's a shame that you've had to change your plans for a big multiplayer game, but good news for me as that means I'll probably be able to take part now.
In terms of multi player rules I've been having a bit of think myself about how to structure a magic phase in such a game, as this seems to be the main bone of contention here.
So how does the following sound as a suggestion:
Power and dispel dice are generated separately for each army on each side by the standard rules.
Each member of the casting side then nominates one of their own wizards, picks a spell, and then specifies a target (if required). Spells which target an army, either friendly or enemy, must specify which army they are targeting.
The dispelling side then chooses which player will attempt to dispel which spell.
If a player runs out of power dice, or wizards to cast spells, then another player on that side may allocate them one or more of their wizards to cast spells with if they wish. This is simply to allow the magic phase to be further sped up if desired.
If a player runs out of dispel dice, another player on their side may give them some of their own dispel dice after the casting side has nominated what spells they are casting that round, but before the casting side has rolled to see whether they have cast their spells successfully.
The casting and dispelling rolls, plus the results of the spells are then worked out simultaneously, between the selected pairs of casting and dispelling players.
The idea here is to try and speed up the dice rolling parts of the magic phase, while still retaining a reasonable amount of flexibility on which player gets to try and dispel what.
The giving out dispel dice part of the suggestion will hopefully allow magically powerful armies to somewhat bolster the defence of magically weak armies, without being able to do so overwhelmingly.
|
|