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.

First of all, it is very important to note that this thread is not specifically related to Warhammer 40K. The systems and questions I'm posing could theoretically be applied to 40K, but it's not the specific goal of the thread…I'm just trying to gauge that as tournament miniature gamers how much you like, love or loathe the general concept of game rules that subtly reward the losing player during a game to ensure that games tend to stay close right to the very end.


Premise #1:
Instead of victory points in the game being calculated only at the end of the game, the missions would continually dole out VPs to both players every turn as the game goes on, and both players would need to keep track of their current VP total. At the end of the game the player with the higher VP total is the winner.


Premise #2:
Each turn, players can bring back one (and only one) of their units that was previously destroyed in the game as a reinforcement. In order to do this, the player has to expend (bid) 1 VP. The opposing player can either let the reinforcement unit arrive if they want, or they can counter-bid 1 VP to block it. If the opposing player does this, it starts a VP bidding war. The player wanting to bring back a reinforcement unit has to BEAT the opposing player's bid, while the opposing player just needs to MATCH the initial player's bid to block the reinforcement from returning.

At any time, either player can pass on making another bid and let the other player 'win' the bidding war. Only the player that wins the bidding war actually expends their VPs.

Example: Danielle declares she will be bringing back a particularly powerful unit as a reinforcement, which will cost her 1 VP to bring back if her opponent Matt allows. However, Matt declares that he is willing to bid 1 VP to prevent that unit from arriving. Danielle decides that she really needs it, so she bumps her bid up to 2 VPs. Matt is really afraid though, and matches the 2 VP bid. Danielle decides to give up at this point, which means her unit does not arrive, but Matt has to expend 2 VPs (with Danielle expending no VPs).


Premise #3:
While only the player that wins the bid expends any VPs, if this player had a higher VP total (before the bidding began) than their opponent at the time, any VPs they expend are also then gained by the opposing player.

Example: In the above example, Danielle started the bidding with a VP total of 6 VPs, while Matt had a VP total of 9 VPs. Since Matt won the bid, but had a higher VP total than Danielle at the time, not only does he lose 2 VPs for winning the bid, but Danielle gains 2 VPs, bringing her total up to 8 VPs versus Matt's 7 VPs (meaning Danielle is now leading the game in VP total).


----


So if that system were in place in a miniatures game (including theoretically 40K), what would you think about it (about the losing player having a slight advantage like this)? As a player that loves a competitive tournament environment, would you enjoy something like that or would you hate it?

This is actually a nifty idea.

I'm going to bring it up with my playgroup and see if we can test it out in a couple games.

 Dr. What wrote:
This is actually a nifty idea.

I'm going to bring it up with my playgroup and see if we can test it out in a couple games.

Be warned if you're going to try to apply this idea to 40K, you need to radically change the missions you use. You have to come up with objective concepts that give out VPs each turn (as opposed to just at the end of the game), preferably at least a couple different objective types in play at once (kind of like how many 40K tournaments utilize multiple objective types in play at the same time). So this is definitely something that has to be used alongside custom built missions if you want to use it in a game like 40K.

 yakface wrote:
Be warned if you're going to try to apply this idea to 40K, you need to radically change the missions you use. You have to come up with objective concepts that give out VPs each turn (as opposed to just at the end of the game), preferably at least a couple different objective types in play at once (kind of like how many 40K tournaments utilize multiple objective types in play at the same time). So this is definitely something that has to be used alongside custom built missions if you want to use it in a game like 40K.

Any of the objective-based missions in 40K can easily be changed to awarding VPs for each turn you control an objective rather than just for controlling it at the end of the game.

And Purge the Alien could easily award the VPs for destroying units the moment you do so, rather than at the end of the game.

 insaniak wrote:

Any of the objective-based missions in 40K can easily be changed to awarding VPs for each turn you control an objective rather than just for controlling it at the end of the game.

And Purge the Alien could easily award the VPs for destroying units the moment you do so, rather than at the end of the game.

I know, but the incredible imbalance present in the basic book versions of the 40k missions become really apparent when you're generating VPs each turn.

For example in the Scouring if one side ends up with the '4', '3' and '3' point objectives all 6" from their own board edge and their opponent has the '2', '2' and '1' point objectives on their side, then that massive discrepancy applied each turn will quickly turn the game into a joke...so (in this case) you'd just have to apply rules putting the '4' and '1' objectives into the center of the table and giving each player a '2' and '3' point objective in their deployment zone.

The Relic also would not work at all on a per-turn basis as written. You'd need to make it so that if both sides are within 12" of the relic (but neither has it) then both sides get a small amount of VPs that turn. If one side has the relic but the other side was within 12" then the side with it would get more VPs but the side without it would still get some VPs (for being within 12"), for example.

You'd probably also want to change First Blood over to a rule that just gives you 1 VP each turn so long at least one enemy unit is destroyed...so basically both sides can gain 1VP each turn from this objective so long as they destroy at least one unit that turn.


And etc, etc, etc.

I know 40K missions can certainly be converted to work with this system, but I'm more just interested if people even like the concept of giving the losing player an advantage to keep the game close, or whether that feels too much like a slap in the face to the player that is winning at the time?

The problem with this kind of setup is that it makes the assumption that how many objectives you hold early in the game is related to how well you're doing. A player might hold all of the objectives at the start of the third turn, but have no hope of winning because their vital AA guns are all dead and the enemy aircraft will almost inevitably win. Similarly, a player might hold few/no objectives because they're holding back and preparing for a late-game objective grab, but be succeeding very well in their strategy of slaughtering the opposition before scoring objectives and have a decisive advantage. In either of those cases your system treats the player with the major advantage as the "loser" for purposes of VP bids, which means that you're actually giving a major advantage to the person who's already ahead.

Before you can make a system like this you need to be able to quantify exactly what it means to be "winning decisively", and I think that's probably going to be way too complicated to make a formal system based on it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 yakface wrote:
For example in the Scouring if one side ends up with the '4', '3' and '3' point objectives all 6" from their own board edge and their opponent has the '2', '2' and '1' point objectives on their side, then that massive discrepancy applied each turn will quickly turn the game into a joke...

This is another good example of the problem, even if you put the 4 and 1 objectives in the center. Let's say I'm in a good position to claim the 4 objective and you have no hope of contesting it, but I don't actually hold it yet (I killed everything nearby with non-scoring units and I'm waiting for my scoring units to move up and take it). I clearly have a big advantage, and the players can probably identify it, but according to your system we're still in a situation where neither player is "winning" that objective.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 yakface wrote:
Premise #3:
While only the player that wins the bid expends any VPs, if this player had a higher VP total (before the bidding began) than their opponent at the time, any VPs they expend are also then gained by the opposing player.

I think this part needs some kind of threshold to it, where you only grant the VP to the other player if you're winning by a certain margin. Otherwise you penalize people for taking small objectives. Claiming a 1 VP objective this turn vs. next turn might not mean much in terms of who is likely to win the game or who has the stronger surviving army, but if it means the difference between being neutral on VPs and gaining a slight advantage you're going to be punished for that success and the punishment will probably wipe out any gains you got from that objective. Meanwhile the player who is suddenly "losing" by a narrow margin probably isn't behind by so much that they need extra help to catch up, and might re-take the lead next turn even without any help.

If you only use this rule once you have a gap of, say, 10 VP between players then you're only applying it when there's a real difference in power on the table and one player is likely to stop having fun, and not for every slight and irrelevant swing of advantage in a close game.

My I titian thought is that this system is of huge benefit to armies with larger/ more expensive units. If I play an msu army paying 1 vp for say a vet squad is probably not worth it vs the guy playing flying circus daemons. At which point the FMC player can probably game they system by bidding just to draw out vps from the other player. Oh you killed fateweaver..well I'll bit on him coming back...just to try to cost you vps. I think we introduce another outside the game tactic to winning/losing....and learning how and when to bid will become a big tactic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I also king of feel that it penalizes players who are getting stomped. If you are losing 10-1. In a mission and manage to kill one really important unit, you might take pride in that. But now I can just give you 2 vps to get it back and still be winning comfortably.

Personally I dont like premise two as it kinda leads to a completely different play style. For example if I know that by throwing away a 500 point unit to get two extra victory points and prevent my opponent from getting any. I can now bid 2 points, get my unit back and whatever I killed in the meantime is still dead.

However I think that premise 1 is definitely the way to go, specifically for 40k. Make it a turn by turn battle where starting at the second turn each player counts the number of points they gained during their turn(not game turn, too much of an advantage to those going second). and it is cumulative going forward. I think that will address lots of the army composition issues we see in 40k, as well as encourage a different playstyle without banning or limiting army choices. I think something like each turn you hold an objective is worth 1 point and the army that holds the objectives at the end of the game gets 3 points each as an example, so there is still an advantage to going second to mitigate the first blood/first shooting phase as well as the additional movement phase towards starting to score objectives instead of just contesting. of going first.

From listening to podcasts it sounds like a lot of tournaments are going to be going the way of premise 1

Breng77 wrote:
My I titian thought is that this system is of huge benefit to armies with larger/ more expensive units. If I play an msu army paying 1 vp for say a vet squad is probably not worth it vs the guy playing flying circus daemons. At which point the FMC player can probably game they system by bidding just to draw out vps from the other player. Oh you killed fateweaver..well I'll bit on him coming back...just to try to cost you vps. I think we introduce another outside the game tactic to winning/losing....and learning how and when to bid will become a big tactic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I also king of feel that it penalizes players who are getting stomped. If you are losing 10-1. In a mission and manage to kill one really important unit, you might take pride in that. But now I can just give you 2 vps to get it back and still be winning comfortably.

Actually the whole point of having a player based bidding system for something like is to give each unit that would be returning the appropriate 'cost' for it's usefulness. And it is up to the players to figure out when a unit returning will be super-advanageous (and worth bidding a lot of VPs on) and when it wouldn't be that useful at all. If you as a player fail to recognize the difference, you will have no one but yourself to blame, which I personally think is always the hallmark of a good rule.

For example, a slow-moving deathstar unit coming back on the last turn of the game is not really worth many VPs, so the opposing player would probably just let the unit arrive (since it costs the owning player 1 VP to bring it back). But brining back that same unit earlier in the game would be much more valuable, so it would easily be worth bidding some VPs by the opposing player to stop it from arriving. The 'free market' of the game is going to always dictate the value of the unit, and it is always going to be more painful for the player in the lead to bring back units or stop his opponent from bringing back their units (which helps keep the game close).


As for it penalizing a player that is getting blown out, that really isn't the case. A game is ultimately determined by VPs, so if the winning player is spending 2 VPs to bring back a powerful unit, that means he's causing a 4 VP swing (he's losing 2 VPs and the opponent is gaining 2 VPs), so even if he's getting back a powerful unit it would have to net him 4 VPs to be worth it.

It may seem demoralizing for the losing player to see the powerful unit return to play, but generally speaking it is still probably a good thing for him.

 yakface wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
My I titian thought is that this system is of huge benefit to armies with larger/ more expensive units. If I play an msu army paying 1 vp for say a vet squad is probably not worth it vs the guy playing flying circus daemons. At which point the FMC player can probably game they system by bidding just to draw out vps from the other player. Oh you killed fateweaver..well I'll bit on him coming back...just to try to cost you vps. I think we introduce another outside the game tactic to winning/losing....and learning how and when to bid will become a big tactic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I also king of feel that it penalizes players who are getting stomped. If you are losing 10-1. In a mission and manage to kill one really important unit, you might take pride in that. But now I can just give you 2 vps to get it back and still be winning comfortably.

Actually the whole point of having a player based bidding system for something like is to give each unit that would be returning the appropriate 'cost' for it's usefulness. And it is up to the players to figure out when a unit returning will be super-advanageous (and worth bidding a lot of VPs on) and when it wouldn't be that useful at all. If you as a player fail to recognize the difference, you will have no one but yourself to blame, which I personally think is always the hallmark of a good rule.

For example, a slow-moving deathstar unit coming back on the last turn of the game is not really worth many VPs, so the opposing player would probably just let the unit arrive (since it costs the owning player 1 VP to bring it back). But brining back that same unit earlier in the game would be much more valuable, so it would easily be worth bidding some VPs by the opposing player to stop it from arriving. The 'free market' of the game is going to always dictate the value of the unit, and it is always going to be more painful for the player in the lead to bring back units or stop his opponent from bringing back their units (which helps keep the game close).


As for it penalizing a player that is getting blown out, that really isn't the case. A game is ultimately determined by VPs, so if the winning player is spending 2 VPs to bring back a powerful unit, that means he's causing a 4 VP swing (he's losing 2 VPs and the opponent is gaining 2 VPs), so even if he's getting back a powerful unit it would have to net him 4 VPs to be worth it.

It may seem demoralizing for the losing player to see the powerful unit return to play, but generally speaking it is still probably a good thing for him.

I don't see how it is ever really good for the opposing player, if they are losing horribly and a powerful unit comes back. So I'm up on you 10-1. I spend 2 points to bring back my unit now its 8-3 are you really any closer to winning. No and now I have a powerful unit, and maybe I use it to now table you and win 12-3. Not really helping you at all.

Another thing to consider is it allows players stomping opponents to submarine in battle point events. If VP margin matters I can spend VPs to win by less to set up easier match-ups.

As for recognizing the value, it is just a mini-game, and if I have a VP advantage I always have the advantage in that game (especially if I have a substantial lead.) So going back to my 10-1 example. I bid one to bring back a valuable unit. Now my opponent bids to prevent it...and I let it go so he loses a VP. now I'm winning 10-0, and can auto bring my unit on the next turn if I want. Or that opponent can let me have the unit for minimal gain.

Essentially as I see the system any early VP advantage leads to a lopsided game where I can control the mini-game of bidding for units.

This is such a terrible idea i don't know where to start.

Unless the game is design with such victory condition it is terrible. Changing any victory condition change the game fundamentally.

Most popular games right now use purchase system for their game design. Units are only design to be useful once in game. Purchase price did not include resurrection and Premise #2 will unbalance that unit price. Since Premise #2 apply to every unit, it will just break all purchase price. the game is broken/redesign before even get to the table.

Game play wise Premise #1 will force any game system into a more direct confrontational game. Capturing VP during the game is important then that mean an avoiding tactics or a non combat/mission center tactics will be less effective. Change the way players design their army and put more focus on unit that able to capture VP during the game which most game system are not design to be that way. back to broken/redesign before even get to the table.

3 men eldar jetbike is useless and a 51 points giveaway in a 4th ed victory point game.

 yakface wrote:
As for it penalizing a player that is getting blown out, that really isn't the case. A game is ultimately determined by VPs, so if the winning player is spending 2 VPs to bring back a powerful unit, that means he's causing a 4 VP swing (he's losing 2 VPs and the opponent is gaining 2 VPs), so even if he's getting back a powerful unit it would have to net him 4 VPs to be worth it.

But if you're spending a 4 VP swing to bring a death star back it's probably going to kill enough to make up for the lost VP. I can start slaughtering you early, spend meaningless VP to keep up the pressure on you by respawning any units you kill, and then collect all the VP I missed at the end of the game when you've been crippled beyond any hope of recovery. That is, if I don't just table you completely before those VP matter.

It may seem demoralizing for the losing player to see the powerful unit return to play, but generally speaking it is still probably a good thing for him.

It's potentially demoralizing, and that's the problem. Losing sucks already, seeing your only accomplishments undone at the cost of some meaningless VP has the potential to turn an unhappy loss that you're willing to play to the end into quitting the game. And if your VP system identifies your opponent as the "loser" on a technicality, even though they're clearly on course to win the game, and gives them the VP swing it's the kind of thing that ends with people ragequitting and never coming back to your tournaments. Even if the system works well most of the time it still has way too much potential to turn an ordinary game loss into a ruined weekend.

 Peregrine wrote:
But if you're spending a 4 VP swing to bring a death star back it's probably going to kill enough to make up for the lost VP. I can start slaughtering you early, spend meaningless VP to keep up the pressure on you by respawning any units you kill, and then collect all the VP I missed at the end of the game when you've been crippled beyond any hope of recovery. That is, if I don't just table you completely before those VP matter.

Thanks for the feedback, I appreciate it!


---


You are assuming here that killing units earns VPs, which is not necessarily the case, and even if it is, there is no guarantee that binging back a deathstar is going to mean you're suddenly going to be able to kill X number of enemy units with it depending on when it is brought back. In addition, if you're talking about 40K, most deathstars are powered by ICs, who most certainly would not be getting brought back at the same time as the deathstar (and would cost additional VPs on a different turn to get back).

I know its really difficult to do, but I'm actually asking for feedback on the system divorced from 40K. What if the game system doesn't even have what would be considered a deathstar in 40K, but just slightly less or more powerful units? Does that change your opinion?

It's potentially demoralizing, and that's the problem. Losing sucks already, seeing your only accomplishments undone at the cost of some meaningless VP has the potential to turn an unhappy loss that you're willing to play to the end into quitting the game. And if your VP system identifies your opponent as the "loser" on a technicality, even though they're clearly on course to win the game, and gives them the VP swing it's the kind of thing that ends with people ragequitting and never coming back to your tournaments. Even if the system works well most of the time it still has way too much potential to turn an ordinary game loss into a ruined weekend.

I'm not sure I quite understand your meaning. If you're playing a game where the point of the game is to earn the most VPs, and part of that system grants the player who is currently on the losing end of that tally a slight bonus, then that is the game. I know it's hard because the mind naturally wants to apply things like this to the game system we're most familiar with (such as 40K), but if that system were in the rulebook for a particular game, then everyone would certainly understand and know it.

So I don't see the distinction of 'technicalities'. Every game system has objectives and you're either getting those objectives or you're not. Some games/missions allow you to get the objectives at the end of the game and others force you to gain objectives as the game goes on. They are simply two different ways to play the game. But if you're playing a game/mission where objectives are earned during the game, then you're either earning those VPs or you're not. There is no loophole/technicality where you're behind in the VP tally where you shouldn't be...you either are behind or you are not.

 yakface wrote:
You are assuming here that killing units earns VPs, which is not necessarily the case, and even if it is, there is no guarantee that binging back a deathstar is going to mean you're suddenly going to be able to kill X number of enemy units with it depending on when it is brought back.

No, I'm not assuming that killing stuff = VP. I'm assuming that killing stuff = winning the game. If my death star slaughters half of your (in 40k terms) elites/heavy/fast units, and then respawns to slaughter the other half the fact that your troops aren't dead yet and I haven't taken a huge lead on VP doesn't matter, your army is crippled to the point that I can just spend the last few turns claiming easy VP against minimal opposition to win the game. That is, if I don't just table you entirely.

I know its really difficult to do, but I'm actually asking for feedback on the system divorced from 40K. What if the game system doesn't even have what would be considered a deathstar in 40K, but just slightly less or more powerful units? Does that change your opinion?

Not really. Unless you have a really weird system where no unit is effective then bringing back something will always be significant. It doesn't have to be a true death star, even bringing back a key tank can be game-changing.

I'm not sure I quite understand your meaning. If you're playing a game where the point of the game is to earn the most VPs, and part of that system grants the player who is currently on the losing end of that tally a slight bonus, then that is the game.

The point is that "who has the most VP on turn 2 out of 10" and "who is going to win the game" are not necessarily the same thing. Let's say I'm playing an aircraft-heavy list. On the third turn you have control of some objectives and have more VP than I do, but I've killed all of your AA units (let's assume you can't respawn them fast enough to save you). The rest of the game is going to consist of my aircraft slaughtering everything in their path with nothing to stop them, and I will almost inevitably claim enough VP over the rest of the game to retake the lead and crush you. But as of that moment, even though both of us know perfectly well that I am going to win and playing the rest of the game is just a formality, I am technically "losing" and I get the respawning units bonus.

 Peregrine wrote:
No, I'm not assuming that killing stuff = VP. I'm assuming that killing stuff = winning the game. If my death star slaughters half of your (in 40k terms) elites/heavy/fast units, and then respawns to slaughter the other half the fact that your troops aren't dead yet and I haven't taken a huge lead on VP doesn't matter, your army is crippled to the point that I can just spend the last few turns claiming easy VP against minimal opposition to win the game. That is, if I don't just table you entirely.

Actually, if you just spend the first few turns killing stuff while the opponent is collecting VPs and then you waste a bunch of the VPs you have earned getting back that deathstar (and spend the rest of the time killing units with it), then there is a *very* good chance that you will have lost the game.

You can't assume that you'll certainly be able to collect enough VPs in the last few turns of the game to make up for the deficit you've put yourself in.

Not really. Unless you have a really weird system where no unit is effective then bringing back something will always be significant. It doesn't have to be a true death star, even bringing back a key tank can be game-changing.

Of course, but that's *why* you have a bidding system (and not just a flat-rate of unit = that many VPs). If a unit is significantly powerful enough, then it is going to be worth bidding up your opponent to either make them spend a bunch of VPs to bring back, or if they give up bringing back the unit and make you pay VPs, if it is that significant a portion of your opponent's army, then you're going to be the one with the advantage in the game currently even though you expended VPs to make it happen.

I think one of the problems with the concept, is that, as presented, if you're thinking of it applied to 40K, there aren't really enough VPs in play on any given turn to give the right economy of scale for bringing back a less useful unit vs. a more powerful unit. But let's say each objective is giving double (or even triple) the amount of VPs each turn to the point where you're often able to gain 5-10 VPs each turn.

Now the economy of scale for the reinforcement bidding would be much more pronounced between a less useful unit and a more useful unit.

Also, lessening the amount of VPs the 'losing' player gets back to 1/2 of what the other player spends is probably be better as well.

The point is that "who has the most VP on turn 2 out of 10" and "who is going to win the game" are not necessarily the same thing. Let's say I'm playing an aircraft-heavy list. On the third turn you have control of some objectives and have more VP than I do, but I've killed all of your AA units (let's assume you can't respawn them fast enough to save you). The rest of the game is going to consist of my aircraft slaughtering everything in their path with nothing to stop them, and I will almost inevitably claim enough VP over the rest of the game to retake the lead and crush you. But as of that moment, even though both of us know perfectly well that I am going to win and playing the rest of the game is just a formality, I am technically "losing" and I get the respawning units bonus.

I agree, but at the same time you seem to be looking at this from the point of view that only one side has units worth bringing back. Both players have equal access to this same rule. So exactly as you kind of mention offhand, the player with the AA units is going to be able to bring those back as reinforcements as well...and that's one of the reasons a system like this is nice, you lessen those situations where you have some key units killed early in the game and you have no chance to recover.

 yakface wrote:
You can't assume that you'll certainly be able to collect enough VPs in the last few turns of the game to make up for the deficit you've put yourself in.

Of course I can't assume that, since it depends heavily on the game and exact details of the scoring system. But let's say it works properly 95% of the time, and only 5% of the time you have problems. This is still really bad, because it means that even at fairly small events at least one person will probably have a loss turned into table-flipping frustration as the system intended to help them get back into the game hands their opponent a major advantage. As I said before, losing sucks, you have to be very careful about things that risk making it worse.

If a unit is significantly powerful enough, then it is going to be worth bidding up your opponent to either make them spend a bunch of VPs to bring back, or if they give up bringing back the unit and make you pay VPs, if it is that significant a portion of your opponent's army, then you're going to be the one with the advantage in the game currently even though you expended VPs to make it happen.

But see, here's the problem with this. Let's say I'm behind 10-8 in VP, but have a major advantage in units alive on the table and will likely win the game because I'm scoring more VP than you each turn after this. I can bid aggressively because not only am I likely to make those VP back, I also don't give them to you if I spend them. You, on the other hand, have to be much more willing to let me win the auction because giving me 5 VP to prevent my unit from spawning means throwing away the one tiny advantage you have. If I bid 5 VP and win it's 10-3 and I still have the advantage in units on the table. If you bid 5 VP it's 5-13, so I now have the lead in both VP AND on-table forces.

I think one of the problems with the concept, is that, as presented, if you're thinking of it applied to 40K, there aren't really enough VPs in play on any given turn to give the right economy of scale for bringing back a less useful unit vs. a more powerful unit. But let's say each objective is giving double (or even triple) the amount of VPs each turn to the point where you're often able to gain 5-10 VPs each turn.

Adding more VP doesn't change anything, because you just scaled up everything equally. It doesn't matter if one objective gives you 1 VP or 10 VP, it's still one objective-turn worth of VP.

I agree, but at the same time you seem to be looking at this from the point of view that only one side has units worth bringing back. Both players have equal access to this same rule. So exactly as you kind of mention offhand, the player with the AA units is going to be able to bring those back as reinforcements as well...and that's one of the reasons a system like this is nice, you lessen those situations where you have some key units killed early in the game and you have no chance to recover.

This is assuming that those AA units can be brought back fast enough. One unit per turn won't save you if I killed five separate units, and will kill them as soon as you bring one back. Meanwhile all those VP you're spending just to stay in the game are going straight to my total, since I'm technically "losing" the game at that point. Now we've just prolonged the time where I slaughter the core of your army and leave the troops for later. But anyway, that's just one example of how "who is most likely to win the game" and "who is ahead on VP early in the game" are only weakly connected. There are a lot of potential situations where the "loser" in VP is actually crushing their opponent and almost guaranteed to win, and even if you only rarely mis-identify the "winner" it's the kind of morale blow that ruins a person's experience.

 Peregrine wrote:
But see, here's the problem with this. Let's say I'm behind 10-8 in VP, but have a major advantage in units alive on the table and will likely win the game because I'm scoring more VP than you each turn after this. I can bid aggressively because not only am I likely to make those VP back, I also don't give them to you if I spend them. You, on the other hand, have to be much more willing to let me win the auction because giving me 5 VP to prevent my unit from spawning means throwing away the one tiny advantage you have. If I bid 5 VP and win it's 10-3 and I still have the advantage in units on the table. If you bid 5 VP it's 5-13, so I now have the lead in both VP AND on-table forces.

You act as though going down to 10-3 is meaningless, which instead it could be completely crippling situation depending on all the other factors of the game. The point you describe is valid, but it is only going to last until the other side gains the lead (which is generally going to occur often if players are bidding to bring back reinforcements). In short, you can't continually sit on the 'losing' side, because the bidding system is going to push you into the lead (at which point the opponent is going to be getting the bonus to bring back his reserves).

Adding more VP doesn't change anything, because you just scaled up everything equally. It doesn't matter if one objective gives you 1 VP or 10 VP, it's still one objective-turn worth of VP.

It changes everything, because the cost of bringing back units has not been scaled up. So now 1 VP spent to bring back a unit (that is not that great) is pretty much chump change compared to spending like 5 VPs to prevent a beefy unit from coming back. If you're only able to gain say 3 VPs a turn on average, than a minimum of 1 VP to bring back a unit or a 4 VP swing between players is massive.

This is assuming that those AA units can be brought back fast enough. One unit per turn won't save you if I killed five separate units, and will kill them as soon as you bring one back. Meanwhile all those VP you're spending just to stay in the game are going straight to my total, since I'm technically "losing" the game at that point. Now we've just prolonged the time where I slaughter the core of your army and leave the troops for later. But anyway, that's just one example of how "who is most likely to win the game" and "who is ahead on VP early in the game" are only weakly connected. There are a lot of potential situations where the "loser" in VP is actually crushing their opponent and almost guaranteed to win, and even if you only rarely mis-identify the "winner" it's the kind of morale blow that ruins a person's experience.

Would it change your mind if there was a careful selected 'instant win' total for each mission type that if either player reached at the end of the turn (while being up on the other player's total by like 3+ VPs or more at the time) then the game would be immediately over? But if both players were tied or within 2 VPs of each other's total (even if they had crossed the 'instant win' threshold), then the game would on.

It would obviously be carefully calculated so that the game couldn't like end in the first few turns, but it would definitely make things a real risk towards a player trying to 'slow-play' his way towards late game victory by milling the reinforcement system.

 yakface wrote:
You act as though going down to 10-3 is meaningless, which instead it could be completely crippling situation depending on all the other factors of the game.

Well, the numbers are all arbitrary since we're talking about a nonexistent scoring system for a hypothetical game. The general point is that as the "loser" you can spend VP to keep your advantage and increase your future VP gains, and if your opponent tries to counter you to avoid letting the game get out of control then they're handing you free VP and throwing away the only advantage they have. Let's say it's 10-8, and you get 4 VP a turn while I get two. Now I can freely bid 1 VP a turn, which you either counter and give us each 3 VP this turn (keeping the situation static with you at a disadvantage), or hoard your precious VP and let me respawn units to keep the pressure on you.

The point you describe is valid, but it is only going to last until the other side gains the lead (which is generally going to occur often if players are bidding to bring back reinforcements). In short, you can't continually sit on the 'losing' side, because the bidding system is going to push you into the lead (at which point the opponent is going to be getting the bonus to bring back his reserves).

But remember, the value of respawning is much higher early in the game than later. By the time I'm forced to claim objectives and make my winning official it's probably too late in the game for your respawns to help much, especially if I've crippled the rest of your army so you don't have enough left to make a viable counter-offensive.

It changes everything, because the cost of bringing back units has not been scaled up. So now 1 VP spent to bring back a unit (that is not that great) is pretty much chump change compared to spending like 5 VPs to prevent a beefy unit from coming back. If you're only able to gain say 3 VPs a turn on average, than a minimum of 1 VP to bring back a unit or a 4 VP swing between players is massive.

But these numbers are all arbitrary. What matters is objective-turns worth of VP (holding one objective for one turn). A unit respawn costs X objective-turns worth of VP, regardless of whether each objective-turn is 1 or 10. The only change is that having lots of VP gives finer control over bidding without getting into fractional VP bids, but I don't think it makes much difference in the final results. You just go from earning 3 VP a turn and using 2 VP to buy back a unit to earning 30 VP a turn and using 20 to buy back a unit. It's just VP inflation with no strategic impact.

Would it change your mind if there was a careful selected 'instant win' total for each mission type that if either player reached at the end of the turn (while being up on the other player's total by like 3+ VPs or more at the time) then the game would be immediately over? But if both players were tied or within 2 VPs of each other's total (even if they had crossed the 'instant win' threshold), then the game would on.

It would change my mind about this narrow issue, but now you're in a case of using bad design in general to try to salvage your respawn system. An instant-win condition, especially one that can be achieved without being so far ahead that it's just a "mercy rule" victory condition that saves the time of playing out a massacre to the end, threatens to end interesting games before they reach their natural conclusion. Think of how frustrating it is when the time limit for a match expires and you haven't finished the game. And sure, sometimes it will feel like a reasonable victory condition to have, but what do you consider an acceptable risk of ruining a player's enjoyment of your event with broken victory conditions?

I'm not sure I quite understand your meaning. If you're playing a game where the point of the game is to earn the most VPs, and part of that system grants the player who is currently on the losing end of that tally a slight bonus, then that is the game. I know it's hard because the mind naturally wants to apply things like this to the game system we're most familiar with (such as 40K), but if that system were in the rulebook for a particular game, then everyone would certainly understand and know it

Here is the issue though, even in that event me as the winner giving you as the loser a few token VPs to enhance my advantage going forward is really not going to make you feel better about the game. Essentially this system is largely one that benefits any player that can gain a significant advantage early on.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm not against the potential of giving the losing player an advantage, I just think that what you have accomplished is the opposite.

Here is the way I see it working out.

If I'm winning by a narrow margin...I don't use the rule and win normally

If I'm winning by a lot I abuse the rule and win by more in all likely hood.

If VPs matter to tournament pairing I abuse the rule to submarine in early rounds.


If I'm losing and respawn units it is likely I will continue losing.

So the only time I see this being useful to the loser at all is in a game where they already have a chance to win.

Here's another example. Let's say we're playing a game of X-Wing, and your best ace pilot just got ionized in a bad spot and is about to fly off the table and be destroyed, without taking much damage yet. That's the kind of loss that often crushes your chances of winning and leads you to just concede and go take a longer lunch break. But since it hasn't flown off the table yet I'm still behind in total damage inflicted, and at the beginning of this turn I will count as the "loser" for purposes of buying back dead ships. Now on top of that morale-breaking loss you have to watch as the "help the loser make it a closer game" system gives yet another advantage to the likely winner of the game and puts you even farther behind. Are you going to think this was a fun game? Or are you going to quit and never even think of playing in an event run by these people again?

Warmahorde scenerios use a VP system but usually the winner is the first to 5 (assuming no caster kill).The problems I see are that some units are certainly better than others yet the bidding process doesn't address that situation. There should be some threshold bid or limit to what can be brought back. Otherwise, I could just sacrifice a major unit/piece and bring it back without regard to its base cost.
The other issue I have is where do the "new" units show up on the board? This could have a major impact on the game and again could be tactically crucial. If I think that I have secured a flank and all of the sudden you can just plunk down a powerful unit and then have the unit just wipe me out (or at least severely damage me) then what would be the point in "securing" that area in the first place?.

there's some awkwardness with unit composition too.

For example, I take my tanks un-squadroned (in game terms) in the Armored Battlegroup list to represent their individual initiative or whathaveyou (as opposed to squadroned tanks which must all fire at the same target for example). My tanks are still organized into three-tank squadrons in the fluff, but are treated as separate individual units by the game.

However, I get to bring back one "unit" of one tank for the same VP bid value as someone else bringing back 3 squadroned tanks, which, while they have the disadvantage of all having to fire at the same target, represent a much tougher proposition to overcome.

It feels weird that two "squadrons" (one a fluff squadron, and the other one a game squadron) of Russes are treated so differently, with the only difference being how precisely they are written down in the army list.

Go look at AT-43.

Karmans- Nova formation is similar to this but it's well thought out.

The flip flopping VP's is a bad idea. Bidding is not.

Under you're proposed rules you can send your best unit out as a suicide squad to cripple the opponent and then recycle as needed for an easy last turn win. I can't think of any game where this would work out well.

I don't like the idea in concept. I don't see a reason to artificially prop up the losing side like this.

In competitive chess, games are rarely played out to their "natural" end because once the losing side recognizes no chance of winning, they resign.

Wargamers, imho, need to adapt this mentality where it's okay to admit defeat and resign. There is nothing wrong with losing, even if you really wanted to win. Why put yourself through the motions of being executed when you recognize the noose?

I voted against this idea as it just provides another system to be gamed for an advantage.

As has been pointed out previously, who is currently "winning" or "losing" is not necessarily who is *going* to win or lose.

As with other systems, people will work out how best to game the VP and bidding system. It could even get to the point where this mini-game of bidding becomes more central to winning than the main game itself.

There is also a huge disparity in how and what units you can use this to bring back. Units that have a greater mobility, range of movement, etc., that can get around the table would be much more valuable to re-spawn regardless of what turn it is as opposed to slower, less mobile units that cannot get around as easily. Or those with longer firing ranges too.

Such as system would also require some bookkeeping on the players' part and would be another thing to forget about at end of turn, argue about, have to call a TO over about.

I voted "too far" as I don't like the idea of punishing the winner which IMO is what 2 and 3 accomplish. The first premise though which rewards players during the game for things they do (instead of once at the very end) is a good idea.

I guess it depends by what degree of victory must you be winning by for the losing player's advantage to kick in. As if you are barely winning and it kicks in, that sucks. If you are smashing your opponent, sure, no worries as that allows them to feel like they have a chance to get back in it.

It also depends on the tone of the event.

I appreciate every bit of feedback that has been provided and it has definitely been useful to me to mull over all the opinions given (even those that think it is a terrible idea).


---


I don't think there isn't any reason you can't have premise #3 attached with a threshold, like a 3+ VP (or whatever) to make it harder for someone to intentionally sit below the radar and try to take advantage of the rule.

You could, in addition, lessen the penalty a bit, like having the player behind by a certain threshold only gain 1/2 of the VPs (rounding up, where necessary) bid by the player that is ahead (instead of the full number of VPs bid). Or you could even cap it at +1 VP to the player that is behind by a certain threshold (when the player that is currently ahead wins a VP bid).

Or there are variant ideas which do similar things, but in slightly different ways:

• You could have the player that is behind by a certain threshold actually only has to expend 1/2 of any VPs he bids on a winning bidding war. That way it would be easier for a player that is behind by a bunch to bid higher to either block the opposing player from getting a unit back and/or to get one of his units back.

• Or you could say that the player that is behind by a certain threshold only ever has to 'match' the current VP bid, while the player that is ahead by a certain threshold has to always 'exceed' the VPs bid by the other player (that's a very, very minor buff to the player that is behind).

 Peregrine wrote:
It would change my mind about this narrow issue, but now you're in a case of using bad design in general to try to salvage your respawn system. An instant-win condition, especially one that can be achieved without being so far ahead that it's just a "mercy rule" victory condition that saves the time of playing out a massacre to the end, threatens to end interesting games before they reach their natural conclusion. Think of how frustrating it is when the time limit for a match expires and you haven't finished the game. And sure, sometimes it will feel like a reasonable victory condition to have, but what do you consider an acceptable risk of ruining a player's enjoyment of your event with broken victory conditions?

I don't think it is bad game design to have an instant win condition, it is just different to what some players are used to. There are many popular war-games, like warmachine that have instant win conditions, and people certain love them and often argue that those games are even more tactically challenged than say 40K.

As long as both players go into the game/event knowing what the conditions are and are able to build their armies knowing this, then the instant win and the reinforcements, etc, all just is part of the game.

With an instant win VP limit in play (although a player has to be beating their opponent by a certain threshold to claim that instant win) and with a threshold in place to give the 'losing' player a slight advantage in bringing back reinforcement units I think the ability for someone to try to skate below the 'VP radar' in order to abuse the rule would be a really big gamble…which actually makes that an interesting tactic to try to pull off.

Again, as long as both players are fully aware of all the victory conditions, to me it seems like this would create a really tactically challenging situation and a lot less frustrating then what happens in some games when you lose a powerful unit first turn and know that you're basically out of the running for the rest of the game.

Yeah, you have to assume gamers will game your system as that is their nature. If you build in fail-safes to prevent abuse of the system so that it doesn't end up doing the opposite of what you intended, then in principle I like the idea. Not for a Ard Boyz style event, but in a general purpose tournament format it could be fun and it helps people to psychologically feel engaged in the game, even if they are getting molly-whopped.

Premise 1: Scoring points each game turn (or even player turn!) you control an objective makes First Blood and Slay the Warlord less important, which is a good thing in my book. This would be no harder to keep up with than Kill Points. Additionally, it makes static armies have to reach out from behind their gunlines and attempt to control/deny mid-field and back-field objectives earlier. I like that.

Premise 2: I don't like it. 1 VP is nothing if you get a heldrake back that died to a lucky shot, or a 10-man terminator squad that deep struck and scattered off the board! I also don't care for the bidding mechanic. You lost the unit, dude. Tough cookies.

Premise 3: I like that better. But up the points. If the unit cost 10% of your list's cost, 1 point goes from you to the opponent. If it cost 25%, 2 points. I dunno. It's a novel idea, but I don't like it on first glance.