Hi guys I know there is a new rulebook out soon but was wondering if people wanted to do a WHFB league again this year. Is so I propose we use the curent rule book and all army lists current as of now.
Only twist would be that I would like to add in an element of VP's for objectives this time.
Thoughts/comments? Does everyone need a rest this year?
Post by Stephen Mawson on May 24, 2010 11:15:13 GMT
I'm currently having a bit of a break from Warhammer, as I've played that a lot recently.
So while I'm not actually that bothered about new or old rules, I'd rather wait until the autumn as by that point I'm likely to be up for another league, where as if it was to start shortly I'd probably give it a miss.
Points level: I'm happy with either 1500 or 2000pts.
Following the rules in the Rulebook for mysterious terrain and randomly generated terrain: I am in favour.
Warhammer games following all the rules in the rulebook will make for more unpredictable conditions. However, everyone will face the challenge of making the most of unexpected situations.
Scenario Battles vs Pitched Battles: I am in favour of both.
A few games into the league one might want a fresh twist on the humdrum fare of pitched battles. As they are objective-based, scenario battles require different strategies to those employed in the "destroy more points than you lose" style attrition of pitched battles. The scenario battles are worth considering.
How about recognising some fun "Achievements" over the course of the league in addition to the traditional and worthy "The guy with most points at the end"?
Maybe with a catchy nickname or light-hearted title: -Luddite: destroyed most warmachines -Class Warrior: killed most heroes/generals -Pyrrhus of Epirus: sacrificed/lost most troops during the league -Rincewind: Lost most wizards to miscasts
There must be more we can come up with, and turn the end of league announcements at the AGM into a fun recollection of the highs and lows of the games played.
Player progress towards the titles agreed on could be tracked in a thread where people could make a single post each and edit this post over the course of the league as games were played.
Edit 1: for a typo and additions. Edit 2: I changed my mind about mysterious terrain after reading Stephen and Mike's comments below. I would maintain variants of the Pitched Battle are workable albeit if chosen carefully, as Stephen and Mike have pointed out below.
Post by Stephen Mawson on Aug 10, 2010 16:27:20 GMT
Scenarios: I'm assuming Mike that when you said Scenario battle you're talking about the narrative scenarios from the rule book, some of which are as Martin says asymetric as the two armies aren't always the same points.
I personally quite like the idea of play a variety of scenarios during the league. However that does have the downside of meaning that if you get several scenarios which favour your opponents armies over your own then that essentially means you have played some of your games at a disadvantage. Since this is supposed to be a competition the games need to try not to favour some armies over others. You can build an army that will cope with a wide range of scenarious, but it's hard to build one that will compete well at them all against all possible opponents.
I'd suggest that if we do want to look at varying the scenarios played, we only use a small number of the more basic ones. The Pitched Battle scenario, the Battle for the Pass Scenario where you play end to end, rather than across, and maybe the scatterd deployment scenario whose name I can't bring to mind right now, would probably be ok.
That would give some variety to play, without hopefully leading to anyones league being hurt by playing to many scenarios that they will struggle in.
Some of results of the games last year were overly effected by the layout of the terrain that was rolled, and I'd rather avoid getting the same thing happen this year with scenarios.
Terrain: I personally would rather avoid using mysterious terrain, mainly as the randomness of the mysterious terrain is pretty high and I don't feel that it actually enhances the game any. If we must use it, I'd suggest that the terrain is rolled for prior to deployment so at least both players know what they're facing before they start.
Points: 2,000 points works better under the new rules. Purely as competative 1,500 point builds tend to be more extreme due to the limits of the percentages and duplicate units system.
The new rules seem to work better with much bigger armies, the bigger the better in fact -- I had a 3½k battle with James on Sunday and it worked extremely well
I think 2000 pts is probably the best compromise between big enough to work well and quick enough to run on a Monday evening
For a friendly game I can see some use for the narrative scenarios in the back of the book, and if one side starts at a disadvantage that's OK as long as everybody is having fun.
However, for tournament play I think both players should at least start with an even chance of winning. Therefore I would suggest that tournament games should all be pitched battles.
I have no problem with some variations on the theme just for interest sake, but I would suggest we be very careful about which we use. Battleline (the traditional pitched battle), Battle for the Pass (playing lenghtways with impassable cliffs on either side) and Meeting Engagement (playing along the diagonal) are all fine.
Also the River of Death scenario (narrative battles, page 388) might work OK as neither side starts in control of the objectives. We might also devise an objective based scenario, similar to River of Death, where both players start in control of one of the objectives.
Personally I would avoid Dawn Attack (the set-up rules are too random for my likely), Death & Glory (it's too easy to win or lose by a single unlucky die roll) and The Watchtower (which gives a massive advantage to the defender).
This is my big bugbear with the 8th Ed rules, so if you actually like mysterious terrain I suggest you skip to the next heading because you really will not like what I am about to say.
Warhammer is a strategy game (at least it's supposed to be), and strategy games are about matching your ability to devise and execute a plan against your opponents' ability to do the same. Granted it is almost axiomatic that no plan survives contact with the enemy, but part of the skill is trying to predict what your opponent might throw at you and adjusting your plans accordingly.
A tournament is the ultimate expression of that philosophy, with the ultimate victor being the player who is best able to this consistently.
The problem with mysterious terrain is that it is unpredictable by definition, so neither player can even attempt to take it into account.
What this means in practice is that the game can conceivably be decided by which player is unlucky enough to have a key unit randomly destroyed by a forest rather than by which had the best battle plan.
In effect, the mysterious terrain rules favour the lucky player over the skilful player, which to my mind rather defeats the object.