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.

Hey,

Wanted to run a scenario by you guys. See if you think it would work. This is a 4-6 player free for all at 250pts.

Each player has 250pts to spend. No HQs or 'named' characters.
1 mandatory troops choice, then Elites/Fast Attack/Heavy Suppirt as normal.
No fortifications or Allies. (Because thats just silly at this points level.)
No Deep Strikes/Outflank etc etc.

Each player has a 100pts reserves again No HQ or 'named' characters.
One objective board centre which must be reached to claim you reserves.
Objective must be uncontested and is not worth any points once reserves are received.
Reserves deploy within 3" of objective.

Victory conditions
Destroy unit 2 points.
Claim reserves 2 points
Survive game 4 points.

Deployment is 24" from other players. 18" from objective.
Roll off to determine deployment order. Play is in reverse of deployment.

Discuss

Thanks

Dan

This scenario favours shooty far too much for my taste.

Is it a 100 more to spend on the reserves or 100 only on reserves? i.e take a 50pt unit and have 300 in reserve or 250 has to start on the table.

If you just have to reach the centre, couldn't you take something like a minimum bike squad, turbo boost and then instantly get reserves? Or even a vehicle seeing as its only 18". It also seems strange to me how play is in reverse of deployment. Then whoever deploys last gets a huge advantage as they are going first as a result. Probably best to just keep it in normal order.

Thanks for the input.

The 100pts is additional.

The two pools cannot be mixed. I think this will keep the objective a target early game. The objective is not worth any points after you have your reserves.

And the reverse play order is due to getting first deployment and first turn would be a bigger flaw.

If you deploy first but have to wait you wont want to put your self in the open so you can get the objective as you have to wait. Equally going last means you may not be able to position that close to the objective forcing combat.

I will consider this though, It was a theory that I though this would solve. Maybe roll off for deployment and turn order?

Why do you feel this favors Shooting too much Dakkamite?

Like I said this is a proposed game, I want to iron out the massive problems before it is playtested.

FFA generally favours castling and shooty over mobile and stabby. The reason for this is that, while the goal in 1vs1 is to expend the opponents strength and preserve yours, in FFA it's 90% simply preserving your strength. Assault means exposing yourself to shooting, while shooting only exposes itself to assault if it cannot kill all the assaulters. So hide in a corner, ideally with a big rock between your Basilisk and the rest of the board, and collect 2 VP every turn for wiping units off the map.

Removing special deployments (for what seems like no reason) neuters the ability of more dynamic, mobility based lists to compete with forts. So assault (and short ranged shooty) which were already on the back foot are left absolutely terrible.

Top tier in this game would be something like corner castling IG Big Guns. Bomb a player off the map every turn and collect your price. Next is the players who can take a long ranged Basilisk killer (Lascannon etc). Then the reasonable shooty armies, IG foot horde or whatever, and finally every assault army in the game fightin' it out for last place.

I reckon fliers should also be removed, and some heavy restrictions on long ranged shooting if you want this to be balanced. "no allies, no forts, as they'd be stupid in such a small game" but yes to fliers and bigass guns makes no sense man.

This is a gametype that could benefit alot from Forgeworld's Zone Mortalis ruleset.

All good points. Ill have a look at what im planning then.

The main purpose of this is to be fun and a change from the norm. I want it to be balanced but not toi complicated. I took out special deployment as everyone will just drop onto the objective and who ever lands last will win as they wont have faced any combat and everyone else will have. Or that was my thinking.

Does the badic concept sound viable to you. Even if my rule seen off??