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.

The problem is that tournaments are literally designed to tier based on your ability to play toy soldiers. By adding this equalizer, it makes it to do this appropriate. It also, however, contributes, as the winners will have a more valid claim.

You could try to make use of the game system's "balance" (try not to laugh too much).

Trading VP's for a certain amount of points (maybe percent of game point limit?) may keep the "buy-back" from being too crazy and then only a portion of that deathstar can come back rather than all of it.

Cool idea to toy with however.

I have the most fun when a game is close, it makes me play to a higher level.
I am just not sure if this artificial bump may create too much of a sliding scale during play.

I tend to like a somewhat static "here is what you have to deal with" or even potentially if it has to roll to come in.
Like if the play is losing by X amount reinforcements will arrive and I can then properly prepare for the next wave.

This seems a bit tooe asy to game, but is an interesting idea.

I would propose an alternative which has a bit more depth to it: secret bidding.

So on a given turn in which bidding is allowed (I would say 1 on turn 2 and 1 on turn 4)

the losing player can submit a unit for both players to bid on. Once they both submit their bid they show and sutff happens.

Note: unless otherwise specified VPs used on bidding are NOT spent.

Case 1: the winning player bids nothing. The loser then gets the unit for free! yay!
Case 2: they tie, the unit is denied (except for Case 1, if both players bid zero the loser still gets it for free)
Case 3: the winning player wins the bid. The unit is denied AND they pay the loser the difference in how much they won (the ONLY instance here in which a player loses VPs)
Case 4: the losing player wins the bid and gets the unit.

This has a lot more strategy to it (though still game theoryable) because the loser can potentially put up a big scary unit with a bid of zero in order to try and trick the winning player into giving up a lot of vps.

There are a few edge cases, if a player has NO VPs then you could in theory let them go into debt or something, etc. but that's the basic modification to your premise.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
the reason why i think this might be a better solution is because on average you are only going to give the losing player 1 vp, so it's back to being a slight adjustment and not a major one.

Theoretically the best moves for the winning and losing player is for the winner to bid 1 and the loswer to bid zero. thus you're looking at a mild change to the game but nothing extreme.

Potentially you may have to adjust Case 2 to be the unit is denied no matter what, even if they both bid zero. that potentially forces the losing player's ideal strategy to not necessarily be 0 as often.

Premise #1 I like.

Premise #2 I don't like. I don't see that it really solves anything and it adds yet one more complication to a game.

Largo39 wrote:
This seems a bit tooe asy to game, but is an interesting idea.

I would propose an alternative which has a bit more depth to it: secret bidding.

So on a given turn in which bidding is allowed (I would say 1 on turn 2 and 1 on turn 4)

the losing player can submit a unit for both players to bid on. Once they both submit their bid they show and sutff happens.

Note: unless otherwise specified VPs used on bidding are NOT spent.

Case 1: the winning player bids nothing. The loser then gets the unit for free! yay!
Case 2: they tie, the unit is denied (except for Case 1, if both players bid zero the loser still gets it for free)
Case 3: the winning player wins the bid. The unit is denied AND they pay the loser the difference in how much they won (the ONLY instance here in which a player loses VPs)
Case 4: the losing player wins the bid and gets the unit.

This has a lot more strategy to it (though still game theoryable) because the loser can potentially put up a big scary unit with a bid of zero in order to try and trick the winning player into giving up a lot of vps.

There are a few edge cases, if a player has NO VPs then you could in theory let them go into debt or something, etc. but that's the basic modification to your premise.

the reason why i think this might be a better solution is because on average you are only going to give the losing player 1 vp, so it's back to being a slight adjustment and not a major one.

Theoretically the best moves for the winning and losing player is for the winner to bid 1 and the loswer to bid zero. thus you're looking at a mild change to the game but nothing extreme.

Potentially you may have to adjust Case 2 to be the unit is denied no matter what, even if they both bid zero. that potentially forces the losing player's ideal strategy to not necessarily be 0 as often.

Hey a suggestion! Thanks for that, I really like a lot of what you're proposing.

A secret bid definitely feels better, I think and if the system kind of represents the 'larger forces' off the table fighting to send in reinforcements, having the sides secretly decide how much support they're willing to lend feels more appropriate.


As for giving VPs directly to the opponent, I think your example is better than my original premise in the first post, but it could still be too extreme. For my own testing I think I'm going with a point threshold that only kicks in and applies when one player is behind in their VP total at the start of a bidding war by a certain margin.

My current thoughts on the matter are this:


Bidding War
Both sides secretly bid a number of their VPs up to a maximum of 6. If the owning player wins the bidding war, their declared reinforcement returns to play, while if the opposing player wins the bidding war, the reinforcement unit does not arrive. Only the side that actually wins the bidding war ends up expending VPs. Any VPs bid by the loser are not expended.

The owning player has to beat the opposing player’s bid in order to win the bidding war, while the opposing player merely has to match the owning player’s bid to win. The owning player must bid at least 1 VP, while the opposing player can bid 0 VPs.

A player can always bid a maximum of 6 VPs, even when they currently have zero or less VPs, which means if they win the bidding war, they will have a negative VP total that they’ll have to dig themselves out of!

A single D6 hidden behind a player’s hand is a great way to secretly bid VPs. If using this method, then an opposing player that wishes to bid zero VPs just doesn’t place a D6 at all behind his hand.

Example: Danielle declares she will be bringing back a powerful unit as a reinforcement, and secretly bids 3 VPs. However, her opponent Matt is rightly scared of that unit and so also secretly bids 3 VPs as well. Since Matt equalled Danielle’s bid, her reinforcement unit does not arrive, but Matt has to expend 3 VPs, while Danielle expends no VPs.


Lopsided Engagements
If one side is currently losing the battle badly, their off-table headquarters will be much more willing to send reinforcements and also expend resources to prevent any enemy reinforcements from arriving.

If, when a bidding war starts, one side currently has 5 or less VPs than the opposing side and ends up winning that bidding war, they only expend half the VPs that they bid, rounding up, if necessary.

Better, though still not a huge fan because the extra time it will take. But the new proposal is harder to game. But it still needs to work.

1.) When does the Bidding War Take place (beginning of a players turn? End of the players turn?)

2.) When does the unit arrive? Immediately, ongoing reserve?

3.) Lopsided Engagements needs rewording. I think it should read "If, when a bidding war starts, one side currently has 5 or more VPs less than the opponent...."

I like this mechanic Yakface, but would have to think long and hard befroe applying it to 40K.

Addendum: There must be a mechanic that prevents the same unit being bid on more than once.

Also it might help if a VP bounty can be paid by the opponent immediately upon the destruction of any unit, which if paid exempts it from bidding and keeps it dead. This will prevent players from concentrating on expensive or 'death star' units to bid on.