Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

leopard wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

leopard wrote:
think the quick start is less "no formation breaks!" as much as there is only one formation per side (with everything in it)

3-4 formations in a 2k game is probably workable, though does again need a fair few more games under the belt - also to work out how long they will likely take if nothing else

Yes but it shows even gw understands that fromation breaks are perhaps something best left for later games, and it coincides with my solution of one combined unit break number.

Or it could show they don't work in a small game with only one formation, or it could be in the grand tradition of starter games that ignore certain rules in favour of others, given it didn't occur to them to put that starter scenario in the box its not that relevant either way.

note the game size in the box is a lot smaller than any event is likely to use and as such is hardly representative anyway

Automatically Appended Next Post:

SU-152 wrote:


Single breakpoint does not favor tanks.

It favors masses of cheap models in the back in cover to prevent reaching break point -> probably going to be infantry, not tanks.

Yeah and it also means opponents can attempt to ignore some tank detachments where possible to put the hurt on infantry which are squishier and easier to target in hopes of breaking the army. Worth noting too this will be easier to do as both armies get more barrage weapons.

But this also fits with the end game scoring I'd be going for. If people find play is too static without progressive scoring, can add secondary objectives that spice things up and perhaps incentives to mix it up in the middle. That and maybe allow more units the ability to be kept in reserve.

to be honest in a game with only end game scoring and not progressive objectives are flat out ignored until that point and the focus becomes entirely on castling up and killing things with a final turn dash

which made various 40k iterations the wonderfully engaging experience they were

not that final turn scoring cannot work but you need to see the variations it will produce, especially with a single break point as you will be allowing that final charge instead of finding some units are prohibited from Charge! orders

If end game feels off or like everyone is waiting to engage and dancing around all game, could always add random game length so no one knows for sure if the game will end turn 5 or 6 for example, like chance of a 6th turn on a 3+ or 4+.


I have no problem too with simple secondary objectives to bait more early game engagement, even as simple as couple objectives that let you score early progressive vp's just for scoring them. Like the little crates that gave money or vehicles in command and conquer.

I just don't like progressive scoring for all of it because it doesn't make any sense to me in totality.

no harm in changing scoring across scenarios, indeed the more scenarios the better really, provides options.

you just need to be aware it will generate very different armies and a different play style, favouring those who can castle for defence with late game deep strikes or mobility deciding the outcome and early turns being as much sniping at range as possible

SU-152 wrote:


End game scoring is how it is done in Epic: Armageddon. And it is the most tactical game GW has ever produced. It is also the closest (and best) thing to a wargame they have done.

Not in the usual end of game sense, though. Besides scoring being scenario-dependent and there being a lot of very different scenarios, even in the Grand Tournament scenario that you're likely referencing here the scoring is dynamic and actively determines whether the game continues or not (ie. you aren't waiting to jump on objectives as the end arrives, you are actively pressing to force as many objectives as possible to force the end in your favor). But it is true that you don't need to tally points over time in GT E:A.

another option is to use something like how flames does it, again not exclusively, just as one of many options.

essentially:
- there are objectives, some yours, some your enemies - you must defend yours and capture the enemy, while they try to do the same (sometimes this is asymmetric as well
- capture by moving onto the objective in your movement, you "secure" it at the start of the next turn (in V3) so your enemy has one turn to shift you
- game ends when you capture an enemy objective
- scoring is based on the level of casualties you suffered (not caused) while winning - losers score is a fixed number less the winners score

rewards swift, decisive action, rewards low casualties while doing it, punishes dithering, and feels like you have a mission and the enemy is just an obstacle in your way

there are many ways to score scenarios

 Sherrypie wrote:

SU-152 wrote:


End game scoring is how it is done in Epic: Armageddon. And it is the most tactical game GW has ever produced. It is also the closest (and best) thing to a wargame they have done.

Not in the usual end of game sense, though. Besides scoring being scenario-dependent and there being a lot of very different scenarios, even in the Grand Tournament scenario that you're likely referencing here the scoring is dynamic and actively determines whether the game continues or not (ie. you aren't waiting to jump on objectives as the end arrives, you are actively pressing to force as many objectives as possible to force the end in your favor).

QFT

You can't castle up in EA/EpicAU 30k because if your opponent fulfills enough of the mid game scoring conditions to win, they become end game scoring by ending the game..

I would like a mix in a Tournament:
-progressive scoring scenarios
-mixed scoring scenarios
-end game scoring scenarios (preferably with random game length)

A mix gives all armies a chance and encourages combined arms and good tactics adapted to the scenario played.

leopard wrote:
another option is to use something like how flames does it, again not exclusively, just as one of many options.

essentially:
- there are objectives, some yours, some your enemies - you must defend yours and capture the enemy, while they try to do the same (sometimes this is asymmetric as well
- capture by moving onto the objective in your movement, you "secure" it at the start of the next turn (in V3) so your enemy has one turn to shift you
- game ends when you capture an enemy objective
- scoring is based on the level of casualties you suffered (not caused) while winning - losers score is a fixed number less the winners score

rewards swift, decisive action, rewards low casualties while doing it, punishes dithering, and feels like you have a mission and the enemy is just an obstacle in your way

there are many ways to score scenarios

Yeah I remember FoW and how 'realistic' the objectives felt. And good point with the 'feels like you have a mission'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 westiebestie wrote:

 Sherrypie wrote:

SU-152 wrote:


End game scoring is how it is done in Epic: Armageddon. And it is the most tactical game GW has ever produced. It is also the closest (and best) thing to a wargame they have done.

Not in the usual end of game sense, though. Besides scoring being scenario-dependent and there being a lot of very different scenarios, even in the Grand Tournament scenario that you're likely referencing here the scoring is dynamic and actively determines whether the game continues or not (ie. you aren't waiting to jump on objectives as the end arrives, you are actively pressing to force as many objectives as possible to force the end in your favor).

QFT

You can't castle up in EA/EpicAU 30k because if your opponent fulfills enough of the mid game scoring conditions to win, they become end game scoring by ending the game..

I would like a mix in a Tournament:
-progressive scoring scenarios
-mixed scoring scenarios
-end game scoring scenarios (preferably with random game length)

A mix gives all armies a chance and encourages combined arms and good tactics adapted to the scenario played.

Good points too.

What I feel about objetives and scoring in LI is that they seem totally 'gamey'. They are not engaging at all.

Why are they giving me VP every round? why are they giving me more VP EACH round? why are they located at perfectly symmetrical points?

at a guess the scenarios, and credit to GW for including more than one and for even putting them in the actual book, are written to be simple to test and the symmetrical design is used because it "should" be equally fair

I guess the progressive bit can be seen as the longer you hold the point, or line, the better you are doing and it prevents tap & dash be it on the last turn or whatever to claim a victory due to one bod with his toe on something that could never be held if the game progressed

key though, have variation, which forces more varied and capable lists

just forget "kill points", that trash can burn in hellfire

I quite like the new missions and ideas in the new game, it feels like one of the few genuine improvements over SM2. Although I liked the objectives system in the original game, it didn't have much variety and could become tedious if you played a lot - so I think a lot of people ended up making extra scenarios, of the sort described above.

 Pacific wrote:
I quite like the new missions and ideas in the new game, it feels like one of the few genuine improvements over SM2. Although I liked the objectives system in the original game, it didn't have much variety and could become tedious if you played a lot - so I think a lot of people ended up making extra scenarios, of the sort described above.

I did like the "siege" version, where the defender placed all four, that was a nice twist

Played 1500pts last night with single break point, it was fine. We both ended up having the exact same break point when we combined the breakpoints of all our formations, 28.

We tried planes and knights for the first time, I had an acastus porphyrion, two thunderbolts and two arvus lighters, my opponent had two questoris knights and two xiphons.

Was a fun game, things went south when I lost my acastus to some kratos and my legate to a charge by the questoris knights. Overall scoring was fine, I basically had an arvus left on the board by the end so had no board control at all.

Anyway, point was it was fine, much easier to track, one we were within sight of each others breaking points it was much easier to consider our next moves because we didn't have constantly check what was in what formation. I messed up my count at one point so did have to count the dead pile, but did so with my opponents help so it was objective. This would have been more of a nightmare if I had to detangle formations.

I'd be absolutely fine with a random end game, like on turn 5 person who lost initiative gets to roll and on a 3+ or 4+ you got to turn 6. I'd also be totally fine with limited reserves for larger games, the ability for example of marines to hold terminators in reserve and deep strike when they choose has proven difficult to counter. but its also worth remember that we're all playing with sorta incomplete lists. No one has light armour or artillery outside of rapiers or havocs or some of the knights/titans. Solar aux doesn't even have ground transports so the arvus's were my fist time having any unit in a transport.


As to controlling formations for an event, the biggest concern I've heard back from talking with various locals getting started is not loving the idea of marines armies with more than 2 legions. I think the current consensus is allowing 2 max but the second comes out of 70/30 so would mean not being able to take knights/titans ect. But ya formations, the only question in my mind is, if people really want to force combined arms you say max 3 form your faction, 0-1 each and then the usual allied 70/30 formation, so some knights or a titan or an allied formation.

The only though for the 0-1 is so try and limit tank heavy lists. I don't think it really does much to prevent them, as even a single solar aux armoured formation can take like 40+ tanks, but it would at least cut down on their activations/msu.

I think for scenarios, still have objectives be scored end game, but have perhaps a different amount per round, like 5 4 3 so the fight is more intense as the amount of overall objectives shrinks. Those numbers are just examples, a lot would depend on if it's a 4x4 or 4x5.

Secondary objectives could be either book ones but likely the same for both sides, or just a way to get some "progressive scoring" in and have ways to get vp's that your opponent can't take away. Simplest example, 2-3 center line objectives worth 1-2 vp each, scored immediately. My only problem there, like with a lot of progressive scoring is, everything is like a march order away from an easy packman gobble up, some boards this isn't or might not be a problem as choke points and paths can be blocked by detachments, but without a lot of terrain or impassable terrain, I've seen plenty of low point battle reports where the victory points just pile up to the point where it feels like im watching basketball. I don't think those are good examples to base a judgement on entirely but they do seem just as much as armies dancing around one another like dance dance revolution doing what the game gives them an incentive to do. Again that's very easy for both sides to do on a 4x5 with like 600pts a side and not a tonne of terrain, so a I don't think that's a fair way to poop on progressive scoring but. But it just doesn't work for me in a lot of situations, if I have a scenario with 3 bridges in the center being the objectives. Progressive scoring or, too much of it, sorta works against the main objectives being taking and holding the bridges. There are rules in the rulebook for destroying bridges as well, perhaps that could be a twist, being able to destroy them and take objectives out of play. I don't think its the end of the world for both sides to have a couple backfield objectives, but then the numbers balloon up fast. But I could see a couple low value (low vp) progressively scored objectives in each players backfield representing like stealing resources or destroying important supplies. I just think the focus should be end game scoring those bridges.

@C: Cool, but won't you guys try at least one of the book scenarios too in your evaluation of scenario design leading up to a Conclusion on how you want to form your scenarios? Maybe they dont play put quite as you think? You won't know until you try.

Marine armies are more mobile atm but think long term. For sure game dynamics is going to swing once more units arrive, in particular SA transports. Which should help with either type of objective scoring.

N.B Terminators can't Deep strike last turn to just contest end game objectives, Reserves not arriving after a certain turn are destroyed afaik (dont have the book here).

yep reserves are auto dead after turn 4 with the exception of flyers.

 westiebestie wrote:
@C: Cool, but won't you guys try at least one of the book scenarios too in your evaluation of scenario design leading up to a Conclusion on how you want to form your scenarios? Maybe they dont play put quite as you think? You won't know until you try.

Marine armies are more mobile atm but think long term. For sure game dynamics is going to swing once more units arrive, in particular SA transports. Which should help with either type of objective scoring.

N.B Terminators can't Deep strike last turn to just contest end game objectives, Reserves not arriving after a certain turn are destroyed afaik (dont have the book here).

The book missions aren't very interesting, the 3000 point battle report from white dwarf featured end game scoring for objectives, but all of the missions in the book seem to be progressive scoring. Again, I'm not new to progressive scoring, I just think it's not that great, both me and my opponent are on the same page there, whether it's 30k or titanicus. End game scoring for the majority of objectives just works better, for us. I think there's room for some progressive scoring, but another feature I can't stand is just how quickly the score adds up, watching a 600pts battle report where they've both got like 20-40vp by mid game just feels like I'm watching basketball. I understand the concern of end game scoring, people will refuse to engage until late game, but I've seen plenty to be concerned about watching battle reports of book scenarios progressive scoring, the battle seems more about dancing around one another with march order getting quick vp's and much less about engaging one another, many boards are just far too open and when you add march order tripling infantry moves and difficult terrain not slowing infantry you just get a lot of zipping around the board munching up point like pacman. Infantry other than marines who can get missile launchers basically just stay hidden as much as possible because they don't have access to any mid or long range weapons, rapiers aren't even out yet for either side sadly.



As for the deep striking termies, my opponent is able to hold the terminators in reserve and bring them in when he wants provided its before turn 5. Where that differs from past gw games we've played is, in 30k reserves outside of special cases like pods generally come in on a roll, there may be characters or wargear that alter the roll or allow a re-roll but total control is pretty rare, in LI you seemingly for now have total control over when to bring them in but after turn 4 they're gone so it's gotta be sometime before then. Other complication is he's got two units, 8 strong, so unless he scatters and gets removed from play from that it's been tough to deal with, for now.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Formosa wrote:
yep reserves are auto dead after turn 4 with the exception of flyers.

Yes but unlike other gw games we've played that have players roll for reserves, in this both units of 8 get choice of when they want to come in provided as you said that's by turn 4 as they can't turn 5, but its still very strong.

@C: interesting, I have the opposite experience with only End game scoring and rule sets w double/triple moves. Just leads to boring castling and gun lines with an end game dash as you can reach or contest pretty much all objectives with a final dash. Hence why I prefer mixed scoring. But with progressive points being lower than end game objectives scoring points. Leads to manouver battles all game as opposed to what I just described and still the end game can swing it.

Saw a game system, though sadly forget which, had multiple objectives, and progressive scoring - however the game end criteria was based on one player having a set number of objectives after "x" turns, so grab three from six and score, four from six and the game ends

and there was progressive points based on how many so an incentive as a player behind if they grabbed four or more in a turn could claw back a deficit

but also rewarded fast wins.

Some of the other stuff from Flames could be good as well, loss conditions such as "no unit within the enemy table half", or "no unit within 16" of an objective in the enemy table half.

made it a bit easier to throw a timid enemy back and end the game

Crablez, the White Dwarf report uses progressive scoring for the main objectives with some end of game secondaries on top. The players of that report talk about it very clearly, noting the difference between the two forces approaches as the loyalist drop force aggressively went for it deep in the enemy lines while the traitors took it conservatively and got going towards the end...

 Sherrypie wrote:
Crablez, the White Dwarf report uses progressive scoring for the main objectives with some end of game secondaries on top. The players of that report talk about it very clearly, noting the difference between the two forces approaches as the loyalist drop force aggressively went for it deep in the enemy lines while the traitors took it conservatively and got going towards the end...

And what was that main objective again? Ah yes. both sides trying kill some random unit on the other side for a tonne of vp. My point was the mission had objective markers scored end game, not every turn. Most of the book missions have fixed objective placement, I don't love that but I get the lets just play vibe of a lot of the book missions, foregoing stuff like randomizing deployment zones ect. I get that with larger and larger games you sorta just need to get playing ect, but a lot of elements of how missions/scenarios work also leave a lot to be desired. The secondary objectives range from interesting to god awful, also not a fan of each side having different ones, same problem I had in AT, just less so as thankfully there's no tertiary objective strats to have to contend with. Was glad to see at least one scenario allows both players to alternate placing objectives. I still think although the pre-defined objectives are faster to get the game going, it still "feels" better to allow objective placement.

 Crablezworth wrote:

 Sherrypie wrote:
Crablez, the White Dwarf report uses progressive scoring for the main objectives with some end of game secondaries on top. The players of that report talk about it very clearly, noting the difference between the two forces approaches as the loyalist drop force aggressively went for it deep in the enemy lines while the traitors took it conservatively and got going towards the end...

And what was that main objective again? Ah yes. both sides trying kill some random unit on the other side for a tonne of vp. My point was the mission had objective markers scored end game, not every turn. Most of the book missions have fixed objective placement, I don't love that but I get the lets just play vibe of a lot of the book missions, foregoing stuff like randomizing deployment zones ect. I get that with larger and larger games you sorta just need to get playing ect, but a lot of elements of how missions/scenarios work also leave a lot to be desired. The secondary objectives range from interesting to god awful, also not a fan of each side having different ones, same problem I had in AT, just less so as thankfully there's no tertiary objective strats to have to contend with. Was glad to see at least one scenario allows both players to alternate placing objectives. I still think although the pre-defined objectives are faster to get the game going, it still "feels" better to allow objective placement.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

With the magazine physically here in my hand, let's check. White Dwarf 493, page 116, left upper corner boxout titled "Objectives", the exact quote: "In the Seize and Hold mission, 6 objectives are placed - 2 in each player's deployment zone and 2 in neutral territory. Victory points are awarded at the end of each round - 2 VPs for each objective in your own deployment zone, 5 VPs for each neutral objective and 7 VPs for each objective in the enemy's deployment zone". Let's also see those secondary objectives, spelled out on page 118 in a similar boxout: "Before the battle, both players roll two D6 to determine their Secondary Objectives. -blah blah- James and Tom both chose Control the Battlefield, which rewards up to 15 VPs for controlling table quarters at the end of the game." The game ended with 57-68 points, both sides scoring 10 points from their end of the game table control and the rest from controlling the objectives on the table, scoring those every turn. Like I said, the players discuss their different approaches to scoring and preserving their forces either aggressively or conservatively.

 Crablezworth wrote:

 Sherrypie wrote:
Crablez, the White Dwarf report uses progressive scoring for the main objectives with some end of game secondaries on top. The players of that report talk about it very clearly, noting the difference between the two forces approaches as the loyalist drop force aggressively went for it deep in the enemy lines while the traitors took it conservatively and got going towards the end...

And what was that main objective again? Ah yes. both sides trying kill some random unit on the other side for a tonne of vp. My point was the mission had objective markers scored end game, not every turn. Most of the book missions have fixed objective placement, I don't love that but I get the lets just play vibe of a lot of the book missions, foregoing stuff like randomizing deployment zones ect. I get that with larger and larger games you sorta just need to get playing ect, but a lot of elements of how missions/scenarios work also leave a lot to be desired. The secondary objectives range from interesting to god awful, also not a fan of each side having different ones, same problem I had in AT, just less so as thankfully there's no tertiary objective strats to have to contend with. Was glad to see at least one scenario allows both players to alternate placing objectives. I still think although the pre-defined objectives are faster to get the game going, it still "feels" better to allow objective placement.

Uuh...wd played scenario from book. That's how blood angels got early lead. They used fast units to get to objectives early including traitor home.

At the end traitor forces were dominating board with blood angels more or less wiped off. End game scoring a) loyalist would have lost big time b) loyal's whole strategy would be disasterously stupid. End game you can't rush straight to objectives in costly assaults because objectives would have been irrelevant and only end game matters. He who wipes enemy wins. So throwing your troops so recklessly bad.

Only reason it worked was progressive. There's 2 ways then to play. Hit hard and fast, try to build lead that holds. Or go slow & steady aiming to cripple enemy and then catch up.

End game 1st way just doesn't work. You take shooty army to blow and some fast units for end game dash. And maybe some cheap deep strikers to come on turn 4 where you can't reach.

Less ways to play is always worse to many.

@c: Also bear in mind the issue you are having with Terminators coming in as late as possible to grab the end game objectives is 100% a tactic/symptom that comes from your scenario design. If you only want end game objectives, you're gonna get tactics like that.

You are being dogmatic against something and then not liking the effects of being against it, in a nutshell.

I really recommend realizing during game scoring can
a) represent many things
b) be mixed with end game scoring to great effect , imo better than only either type
c) generally lead to more interesting, tactical games of manouver and deliberations about when to commit your assets where

Anyhow I aim to try all the mixes for tactical variation and opportunities for all play styles.

Ymmv, go with only End game as you're dead set on that but then no point in complaining about how it plays out imo. We all can realize how that type of scenario will play out as it will be similar most times. 🤷

Referring to that mission, thought that was what was played in the battle report. Regardless, we can all read where it says "end game objective". Can we now take sights off me and put them on the game designers?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 westiebestie wrote:
@c: Also bear in mind the issue you are having with Terminators coming in as late as possible to grab the end game objectives is 100% a tactic/symptom that comes from your scenario design. If you only want end game objectives, you're gonna get tactics like that.

You are being dogmatic against something and then not liking the effects of being against it, in a nutshell.

I really recommend realizing during game scoring can
a) represent many things
b) be mixed with end game scoring to great effect , imo better than only either type
c) generally lead to more interesting, tactical games of manouver and deliberations about when to commit your assets where

Anyhow I aim to try all the mixes for tactical variation and opportunities for all play styles.

Ymmv, go with only End game as you're dead set on that but then no point in complaining about how it plays out imo. We all can realize how that type of scenario will play out as it will be similar most times. 🤷

Yeah no, sorry, you don't even know whether the termiantors came i turn 2 or 4 in either of the games man, you're not actually even privy the score, so how you're making that assessment is a bit beyond me.

"You are being dogmatic against something and then not liking the effects of being against it, in a nutshell." The feeling is mutual.


"no point in complaining about how it plays out imo" I don't recall complaining how it played out, both games went very well, largely on account of the vp scores not rivaling a basketball game. Tell ya what, I'll just watch basketball and every 10 seconds when they score a hoop I'll say "wow, tactical" I'm sure that will have converted in no time, If that doesn't work in making me like progressive scoring my final effort, I'll switch to pacman




Anyway, combined break point seems to work fine and solves the main issue, having to come up with some sort of system to mark identical units. I believe I mentioned this before but our combined break point for our last game ended up beinf exactly the same at 28.

 Crablezworth wrote:



Referring to that mission, thought that was what was played in the battle report. Regardless, we can all read where it says "end game objective". Can we now take sights off me and put them on the game designers?

Again, what? Which mission? Everything in the video that you link talks about progressive scoring. The first mission page shown was for 40k and the actual LI missions 1 & 3 (2 in the middle being for Heresy, as the article was about combining different games to a campaign) clearly read that scoring is done at the end of each round. And before that, while going through the battle report, listen to 16.55-17.10 timestamp where he reads the objectives for the report and how they are done each round.

I have no desire to hold sights on anyone, but I do have an issue with attempts at glibness without receipts.

Its always puzzling to watch someone paint themselves into a corner deliberately. Are they going to leave a small path open to get out? Are they going to listen to advice when multiple experienced people tell them what's going on, trying to help them? Or will they keep painting until their position is completely stuck in the corner, defensively talking back at anyone telling them maybe they should have listened?

Pragmatic is the opposite of dogmatic. Ie open to other perspectives, learning from experiences rather than staying to rigid opinions or principles. When someone has played many rulesets for 25 years, most of them with end game scoring, many modern sets with hybrid scoring and expressively saying they're open for all kinds of missions, well thats pragmatic and based on experiences. Calling them dogmatic back would be incorrect, hence the explanation. Stating one type of scoring is basketball or Pacman while the other is a real battle, well thats typically being dogmatic, by definition.

Someone brought up the issue of Terminators contesting and coming in late being hard to counter. Advice to the painter followed and discussion on mission scoring followed. If the painter now says this was not what he said, well ok why did we waste time discussing that then?

In a battle, not wargame, there are tactical objectives linking to a strategic one. You have low level targets DURING your mission, take the hill or structure that gives you a vantage point, protect the Crossroads. Intel can be found in that structure maybe, good firing lanes important to control. All happen during a battle. Morale is affected on both sides by control/loss. Hence game representation of scoring during a battle.

If this ifeels like Pacman lets move over to end "game" objectives and their real life representation. When does a battle End? After a fixed time limit, after X turns? Maybe before night vision etc limited battles to daylight but hardly anymore. Or is it once or side is destroyed below capacity to fight on, broken, surrenders or flees? And does that indeed not change what was during battle objectives to end of battle objectives? Saying only End of battle counts would mean there would be no point to control that vantage point/Crossroads until the enemy is beaten when its suddenly very important to secure it I see this perspective as the one not linked to how real battle is waged. Again I am not man guessing, I have done service.

The Tournament scenario of EA30k/EpicAU 30k captured this quite well. Force enough of an advantage during the game abd that abstracted into breaking the enemy, thus becoming end game scoring.

Regarding the LI game, since its not true alternating activations end game dash isn't quite as bad, as you can't move in after everything has fired. But the double/triple moves still means you can dash from afar. Deep strike is indeed potent and hard to counter if only End game scoring is present. Flyers unloading anything without jump packs have to stay for a turn and change to hover/Skimmer in the End phase so they can de bestroyed by the castling player in the last turn. Flyers dropping jump troops last turn will be tougher.

I'm still open to try End game scoring only in LI as well and will give all sorts a few tries since its a game and should be challenging and entertaining for both players. Even though me, and I read the other people commenting as well, feel those scenarios are much more predictable and less entertaining. And to me, less realistic in the sense what does it even represent, only fighting to control stuff after exactly 5 turns of time. That's not how a battle is fought.

 Sherrypie wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:



Referring to that mission, thought that was what was played in the battle report. Regardless, we can all read where it says "end game objective". Can we now take sights off me and put them on the game designers?

Again, what? Which mission? Everything in the video that you link talks about progressive scoring. The first mission page shown was for 40k and the actual LI missions 1 & 3 (2 in the middle being for Heresy, as the article was about combining different games to a campaign) clearly read that scoring is done at the end of each round. And before that, while going through the battle report, listen to 16.55-17.10 timestamp where he reads the objectives for the report and how they are done each round.

I have no desire to hold sights on anyone, but I do have an issue with attempts at glibness without receipts.

The link is timecoded to the screencrab of the mission. It's not the one they played but was shown in he white dwarf. Attempts at glibness? I've linked to the exact frame grab of the mission i'm reffering to with end game scoring for objectives, you are correct that's not the one they played, my mistake.

Crablezworth wrote:

The link is timecoded to the screencrab of the mission. It's not the one they played but was shown in he white dwarf. Attempts at glibness? I've linked to the exact frame grab of the mission i'm reffering to with end game scoring for objectives, you are correct that's not the one they played, my mistake.

That timestamped mission with noticeably different graphic style is indeed for 40k and has nothing to do with LI nor the battle report in question, being merely an early rumour which people debunked within the first hours of those leaks coming out.

As for glibness:

Crablezworth wrote:

 Sherrypie wrote:
Crablez, the White Dwarf report uses progressive scoring for the main objectives with some end of game secondaries on top. The players of that report talk about it very clearly, noting the difference between the two forces approaches as the loyalist drop force aggressively went for it deep in the enemy lines while the traitors took it conservatively and got going towards the end...

And what was that main objective again? Ah yes. both sides trying kill some random unit on the other side for a tonne of vp. My point was the mission had objective markers scored end game, not every turn. [...]

Snide tones do not suit one well, when they are not operating from experience since you clearly haven't read the report which contradicts everything you said. With that said, mistakes happen and life goes on.

 Sherrypie wrote:

Crablezworth wrote:

The link is timecoded to the screencrab of the mission. It's not the one they played but was shown in he white dwarf. Attempts at glibness? I've linked to the exact frame grab of the mission i'm reffering to with end game scoring for objectives, you are correct that's not the one they played, my mistake.

That timestamped mission with noticeably different graphic style is indeed for 40k and has nothing to do with LI nor the battle report in question, being merely an early rumour which people debunked within the first hours of those leaks coming out.

As for glibness:

Crablezworth wrote:

 Sherrypie wrote:
Crablez, the White Dwarf report uses progressive scoring for the main objectives with some end of game secondaries on top. The players of that report talk about it very clearly, noting the difference between the two forces approaches as the loyalist drop force aggressively went for it deep in the enemy lines while the traitors took it conservatively and got going towards the end...

And what was that main objective again? Ah yes. both sides trying kill some random unit on the other side for a tonne of vp. My point was the mission had objective markers scored end game, not every turn. [...]

Snide tones do not suit one well, when they are not operating from experience since you clearly haven't read the report which contradicts everything you said. With that said, mistakes happen and life goes on.

You're absolutely right, I was incorrect in both cases.

How many games of legions have you been able to get in so far? I've played two. Enjoyed both thoroughly with end game scoring and combined breaking point. Which as I mentioned in our last game, our combined breaking points were both exactly 28 units.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 westiebestie wrote:
Its always puzzling to watch someone paint themselves into a corner deliberately. Are they going to leave a small path open to get out? Are they going to listen to advice when multiple experienced people tell them what's going on, trying to help them? Or will they keep painting until their position is completely stuck in the corner, defensively talking back at anyone telling them maybe they should have listened?

How many legions imperialis games have you had, oh wise one? Talking as if legions is something you've played for 25 years isn't really doing any favours either. I don't know how much simpler I can put this, I've encountered progressive scoring in plenty of games and loathed for a myriad of reasons across said games. The entirety of titanicus I played with end game scoring. I don't think there's anything wrong with limited progressive scoring, limited. That's not being dogmatic, that's the perspective my own experience and preference dictate. I believe you if you prefer progressive scoring, believe me when I say I prefer end game. I appreciate you being open to end game scoring, and I will fully acknowledge that as point levels increase a random game length from 5-6 may really be what's needed if end game rushes become common. Why we haven't encountered that yet is we've been doing 1000-1500 points, so very little is left alive by turn 5. We're still playing with sticky objectives, so that also means shooting units off an objective you can't switch back isn't as useful as it would be otherwise. I do want to have limited progressive scoring, but I still prefer it be relatively low vp.

I won't personally get the chance to play before well into January, sadly, but with a critical eye towards the reports thst are coming out as things are the game plays pretty much like SM 2nd did (surprising nobody as the rules are only slightly different). Which came out in 1991, so there could feasibly be people around who have played similar stuff for over 25 years

My take is always towards a wide variety of missions and terrain setups, always weighting the importance of tactical decisions at the table over a priori deliberations. Progressive or otherwise dynamic, even secret, scoring systems do that better than end of game points, which have a more passive effect on the flow of the game. Neither are more realistic than the other, though progressive systems tend to give a more accurate portrayal of the myriad factors and time pressures that go into actual battles (as miniature games by their nature tend to only deal with the tactical *how* of fighting rather than the strategic *why* of it).

 Crablezworth wrote:






Automatically Appended Next Post:

 westiebestie wrote:
Its always puzzling to watch someone paint themselves into a corner deliberately. Are they going to leave a small path open to get out? Are they going to listen to advice when multiple experienced people tell them what's going on, trying to help them? Or will they keep painting until their position is completely stuck in the corner, defensively talking back at anyone telling them maybe they should have listened?

How many legions imperialis games have you had, oh wise one? Talking as if legions is something you've played for 25 years isn't really doing any favours either.

I don't know how much simpler I can put this, I've encountered progressive scoring in plenty of games and loathed for a myriad of reasons across said games. The entirety of titanicus I played with end game scoring. I don't think there's anything wrong with limited progressive scoring, limited. That's not being dogmatic, that's the perspective my own experience and preference dictate. I believe you if you prefer progressive scoring, believe me when I say I prefer end game. I appreciate you being open to end game scoring, and I will fully acknowledge that as point levels increase a random game length from 5-6 may really be what's needed if end game rushes become common. Why we haven't encountered that yet is we've been doing 1000-1500 points, so very little is left alive by turn 5. We're still playing with sticky objectives, so that also means shooting units off an objective you can't switch back isn't as useful as it would be otherwise. I do want to have limited progressive scoring, but I still prefer it be relatively low vp.

I somehow knew there would be slew jab slightly directed at my person instead of answering my game reasoning around your statements coming. I did not say I am wise or have played LI since before it came out, that's all you bending my words. Ridicule is a poor substitite of argument, I am partly guilty too. For transparency I'm into my first new edition games just as you of course. Lets leave that, you can respond to me saying you are dogmatic if you find that a word loaded with value rather then descriptive. I'm in no way dogmatic though as you implied in return, its just wrong. I am super pragmatic actually. Sorry if I offended you with this.

You also did not quote any of my reasoning or explanations, just my observation.

Now you are clear its your preference. That's cool, that can't be argued with. Its also based on experiences of previous systems I gather.

But you have previously argued in multiple threads on multiple platforms (Dakka, FB) that progressive scoring does not represent anything tangible, using repeated ridiculing references to sports which I find illogical. Voicing a strong opinion without real argument (at least not any that I've seen). I tried to disprove that with explanations and examples, as per discussing something. You are now fully aware progressive scoring can be viewed as more tangible and logical than scoring after a certain time, slightly random or not. Especially if objectives are placed on points of tactical importance and not geometrically even.

Whatever you stay with, be clear its based on preference and not real world battle analogy reasons as if it was a discussion when both sides are open to discuss with the purpose of enriching perspectives. Noone will argue since you do it for personal preference reasons unless you also argue that the other perspective is ridiculous.

Same thing with changing formation break points to army wide really, do it if you prefer it. It alters the game options tactically but is easier to track for sure.

Same with only impassable terrain instead of difficult in your scenario, it alters tactical options for Infantry & walkers especially but if both players like to why not.

What I can't get my head around us why decide all this just based on opinion without even trying the other way. I will try all ways then pick favourites, and vary. I will even try your scenario for enrichment & perspective. But I wont argue rationale anymore

Enjoy the game.

 Sherrypie wrote:
I won't personally get the chance to play before well into January, sadly, but with a critical eye towards the reports thst are coming out as things are the game plays pretty much like SM 2nd did (surprising nobody as the rules are only slightly different). Which came out in 1991, so there could feasibly be people around who have played similar stuff for over 25 years

My take is always towards a wide variety of missions and terrain setups, always weighting the importance of tactical decisions at the table over a priori deliberations. Progressive or otherwise dynamic, even secret, scoring systems do that better than end of game points, which have a more passive effect on the flow of the game. Neither are more realistic than the other, though progressive systems tend to give a more accurate portrayal of the myriad factors and time pressures that go into actual battles (as miniature games by their nature tend to only deal with the tactical *how* of fighting rather than the strategic *why* of it).

Well can we both agree while faster to have the fixed objective locations for each mission/scenario, it's nice that one of book missions allows both sides to place 3 objectives as opposed to a fixed map. I see the benefit to both, one for speed, the other for more in depth games/scenarios/allowing players to put objectives next to cool landmarks/terrain/structures ect. Fair to say neither of our AT games/missions were super standard/by the book. I think for the better most of the time, in my case it didn't affect much because there wasn't really a local scene playing core matched play missions/open engine war cards.

A marked difference as well is deployment zone is pretty standard for most missions with a couple exceptions. Again for speed of play I do like that most of the book missions don't have a lot of variables to juggle like x amount of possible deployments, really its just the secondary objectives that add a bit of variance, there's only 6. I'm not a big fan of those but a few of them are fun.

Just getting back to breaking point, the plan on this end is to keep playing with combined breaking point and inch up the point level of games by about 500pts until we get to around 3000 and see how it goes, if there's a large disparity for example as we inch up and up. So far it was a pleasan surprise to see our combined breaking point number be the same in our last game (28 units).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 westiebestie wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:






Automatically Appended Next Post:

 westiebestie wrote:
Its always puzzling to watch someone paint themselves into a corner deliberately. Are they going to leave a small path open to get out? Are they going to listen to advice when multiple experienced people tell them what's going on, trying to help them? Or will they keep painting until their position is completely stuck in the corner, defensively talking back at anyone telling them maybe they should have listened?

How many legions imperialis games have you had, oh wise one? Talking as if legions is something you've played for 25 years isn't really doing any favours either.

I don't know how much simpler I can put this, I've encountered progressive scoring in plenty of games and loathed for a myriad of reasons across said games. The entirety of titanicus I played with end game scoring. I don't think there's anything wrong with limited progressive scoring, limited. That's not being dogmatic, that's the perspective my own experience and preference dictate. I believe you if you prefer progressive scoring, believe me when I say I prefer end game. I appreciate you being open to end game scoring, and I will fully acknowledge that as point levels increase a random game length from 5-6 may really be what's needed if end game rushes become common. Why we haven't encountered that yet is we've been doing 1000-1500 points, so very little is left alive by turn 5. We're still playing with sticky objectives, so that also means shooting units off an objective you can't switch back isn't as useful as it would be otherwise. I do want to have limited progressive scoring, but I still prefer it be relatively low vp.

I somehow knew there would be slew jab slightly directed at my person instead of answering my game reasoning around your statements coming. I did not say I am wise or have played LI since before it came out, that's all you bending my words. Ridicule is a poor substitite of argument, I am partly guilty too. For transparency I'm into my first new edition games just as you of course. Lets leave that, you can respond to me saying you are dogmatic if you find that a word loaded with value rather then descriptive. I'm in no way dogmatic though as you implied in return, its just wrong. I am super pragmatic actually. Sorry if I offended you with this.

You also did not quote any of my reasoning or explanations, just my observation.

Now you are clear its your preference. That's cool, that can't be argued with. Its also based on experiences of previous systems I gather.

But you have previously argued in multiple threads on multiple platforms (Dakka, FB) that progressive scoring does not represent anything tangible, using repeated ridiculing references to sports which I find illogical. Voicing a strong opinion without real argument (at least not any that I've seen). I tried to disprove that with explanations and examples, as per discussing something. You are now fully aware progressive scoring can be viewed as more tangible and logical than scoring after a certain time, slightly random or not. Especially if objectives are placed on points of tactical importance and not geometrically even.

Whatever you stay with, be clear its based on preference and not real world battle analogy reasons as if it was a discussion when both sides are open to discuss with the purpose of enriching perspectives. Noone will argue since you do it for personal preference reasons unless you also argue that the other perspective is ridiculous.

Same thing with changing formation break points to army wide really, do it if you prefer it. It alters the game options tactically but is easier to track for sure.

Same with only impassable terrain instead of difficult in your scenario, it alters tactical options for Infantry & walkers especially but if both players like to why not.

What I can't get my head around us why decide all this just based on opinion without even trying the other way. I will try all ways then pick favourites, and vary. I will even try your scenario for enrichment & perspective. But I wont argue rationale anymore

Enjoy the game.

I have every intent to try a lot of stuff terrain wise, impassable was more just to slow start because some of the other rules like obstacles need a bit of clarification ect. Book mentions combining terrain types so that might be the solution. I think as long as the concepts are clear for both parties in terms of having read the terrain rules, it shouldn't be too hard to compromise on setups both players like and rules that work well for both parties.

The combined breaking point may become more of an issue as we inch up the size of our games towards 3000, it still solves a big problem in that I can have an event or host a few games where I don't have to force people to mark identical units to what formation they belong to, that's a really really big relief so it's difficult to walk back even if imperfect.

I don't think we'll ever fully convince one another on scoring, but that's fine, apologies for any tone or offense as I do feel strongly about end game scoring so no doubt I probably used less than flattering analogies ect. I think we're all excited for legions so that's a good thing and I think it has enough in the book to keep us all content assuming we get to roll dice

I'm stoked for game 3