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.

So breaking points are so far the only downer encountered in the first game. Everything else was a blast.

The problem is a few things, keeping track of breaking point can be very simple but get very complicated quickly.

Simple:

If both sides just have one formation, all it requires is figuring out the magic number of models removed as casualties that exceed the formations breaking point. This just requires knowing that number and either neatly arranging your dead models on the sideboard in a fairly easy to account way or a pen and pad where you update the number of casualties as you remove models from detachments that have died. You don't have to think about distinguishing which detachment belong to which formation as there is only one.

So far so good, it's just one number to remember and you count up until you hit that number, you can also stop counting once your one and only one formation in this case is broken.


Complicated:

As point levels of games go up and players find themselves fielding more and more formations, the above mentioned method has to happen for each formation, which would mean knowing each formations breaking point and having multiple dead piles/areas for casualties but withone further, quite dire complication. If multiple formations have the same detachments, example: two formations both containing identically sized and armed units of say leman russes, I now have to be able to tell if the leman russ im removing was from my armoured company formation or my sub-cohort. This may be as simple as simply only taking certain unit types in certian formations, to avoid having to mark them with a colour or symbol or number under the base. But the problem can get very complicated if running large armies.

An example, just a simple one, imagine running two identical formations, every unit mirrored exactly right down to weapon loadouts, how are you going to know where to put any ofthe casualties even if you've divided up a space on the side board for two castualty piles with identical breaking point numbers?



The issue is, I don't mind tracking casualties, but it will get so complicated so quickly that it will make larger games very difficult when I don't think they'll have to be as complicated. To give an example from a game on Friday, we had to make a small area of sideboard for the various structures on the board and document which ones corresponded to which structure. Even with only 5 structures on the board this took up more sideboard than i would have liked. It competed with space for documenting out two formations dead piles/breaking points. This already felt cluttered and we were only playing on a 4x4 mat section of an 8x4 table, so we had 4 feet of sideboard and it still was frustrating knowing that in most cases outside of basement gaming we will only have a total table size of 6x4, meaning only 2 feet for sideboard with 4x4 mat, or if we try 4x5, only a single foot of sideboard. So thinking ahead to trying to run events locally, kinda have to pick our battles.

My solution, the simplest possible home brew rule would be the following.

Combine all formations breaking points into 1 number, the army as a whole now has one and only one breaking point number to track. Lets say you've combine your 4 or 5 formations breaking points, sake of argument your breaking point is now 52, you have one dead pile, or if you prefer to pack your dead models back in a case you can just track with a pen and a pad, but you may still want to have your models ready in case there's a miscount or error. I'm only thinking that would matter in the example of a tournament/event where a third party might have to help account for things.

What this means is you don't have to stress over the added level of giving units sub designations with symbols or colours or numbers. Similarly your opponent will know if you are close to breaking because its one number both are tracking with full transparency, but they don't have to start asking if this bolter marine units is from x formation, they simply know how many more models they have to remove to break the army, so its just way less emotional stress/weight and a lot more fun imo.


I'd love peoples thoughts.




For those of you who, like myself, are more of a visual creature, here is a good way of understanding the problem, and this is with a 4x4 game board/mat, imagine a 4x5 or 4x6 board/mat, 1 foot of sideboard could be very restrictive.

Well, there are restrictions on order choices for broken formations and modifiers to morale rolls and someone might like the rewards of destroying half of a singled out formation.

I don't recall having any trouble back in the second edition days (bar the jokes about needing a second table just for the army cards - but then we played really big games).

I guess it could be an issue for a game made up of unpainted models or a player who fields formations that are exact duplicates and deploys in such a way as to be confusing, and without any markings to tell them apart. But... breaking formations is part of the game.

I love your illustration, it both illustrates the issue well and makes me giggle. I think the solution to your problem might be getting a separate snacks table. One of those rolling drink tables maybe, with crisps & beer, cheese & wine or why not ice and GTs. Imagine this being sent as a suggestion to the GW FAQ team as a proposed gaming setup...

I too don't think combine army total break point is a good idea, I want both players to be able to break a Formation as it will be a key tactic.

So solving the practical tracking challenge is key. I am thinking only a dice tracker for each Formation on the side area, on like a paper with squares for each Formation. Putting killed models from Detachments in a storage box below the table per Formation of VPs are awarded for killing, otherwise just removing them.

Breaking formations rather than whole armies is, indeed, a big part of the game that can direct maneuvering in both offensive and defensive ways as players try to cripple certain targets in their opponent's lines. That's attrition and at least a way to interact with C&C problems modeling, while breaking whole armies is more akin to bottle tests and similar "lose more" mechanics that aren't there to be interacted with, they are there to force the game to a close sooner than later.

In larger games, I'd probably try to just keep the dead neatly arranged on their rosters separated by formations so that I can always just look at the paper and the number of casualties on said paper.

I expect to do a4 sheet wltk each formation listed and casualtles added as they happen.

Tracking detachments bit harder but if i have 2 infantry formations probably will not be splitting detachments willy nilly to make life easier.

Or just go for fixed formations and say base trim colour denoting formation. Costs more euro's but...

My plan is to give the blast markers from Epic 40,000/Armageddon a new lease of life, by using them to visually mark casualties. Adds a little drama to the visuals, and will be a nice visual reminder of break points: lots of blast markers? Check against the formation.

have to say the way I was handling this, in a game with just two formations, was to have noted the initial size, and break point on the bit of paper I wrote the army list on.

and then ticked off casualties taken as they occurred as a simple tally - afterall it doesn't matter what in the formation died, just how many have. That combined with a fair few dropping dead at a time made it reasonably simple.

I get the point though, it will be a bit easier once I have worked out "normal" detachments and formations as they can be marked up on the bases.

having managed with 15mm formations tracking casualties to get "at or below half strength" with units of ~40 or so bases, across several such units its just something you essentially get used to

do like that illustration though, and its actually harder than that one of the places I game at where they have set up actual 5x4 tables, typically as a 10x4 with two mats and there is literally no "sideboard" area

almighty Gork alone knows how they will cope when GW go back to 6' tables at some point

I'd love all of you though understand that I'm trying to come at this from an event perspective, meaning a unifying system and bespoke "I paint coloured chevrons and numbers on everything" is a non-starter. If there's an issue or discrepancy with people's counts in terms of casualties, even with multiple dead piles for a third party to count/check/audit if that's me or another TO we wouldn't be privy to everyone's special system, because it's two problems, its objective count but also "how do I, your opponent, or anyone, know what formation any detachment belongs to, you could literally have the same 1000pt formation 3 times over?" There's historical gaming and then there's need a 3 hour symposium before being able to play, there are limits.

I played AT, I remember the insane amount of mistakes made on both sides simply ticking the wrong terminal by mistake in a game with like 7 models per side, how people think this is a reasonable as at 3000pts is beyond me. I understand perfectly well the impract it's suppose to have, I also know its completely untenable from an event perspective for an entire game mechanic to be handled differently by every player. I simply don't have the time to study the history of every players paint scheme and numerology system. It would have to be on system for all. This was also goonhammer's bigger complaint about the game, the book keeping at scale just falls apart.

I as a TO can come in and try and detangle a dispute over a single breaking point number, meaning I can ask the player to be able to count his dead pile. I'm sorry, I can't then have to take a census of 6 different chevrons for the same model.

Also, no one has been able to answer me how this will work with 1 foot of sideboard (playing 4x5 on a 6x4), I'm playing with 4 feet of sideboard (8x4) and it was borderline untenable to do both that and track all the separate piles of dudes who are in buildings. So this isn't just "i don't like this rule" It's entirely untenable from not jus ta TO perspective but a logistics/physical space requirement, no local store was able to accommodate titanicus for the same reasons, needing a massive space for sideboard. Any solution that still has people marking individual bases in a game that's not just supposed to scale up well but allegedly designed to play at those higher levels, its going to have me sticking to incredibly low point levels or enact draconian nonsense like no duplicate units across formations.




Just for refference, all of this is happening on a backdrop of half the people I talk to saying something like "wysiwyg" doesn't or shouldn't matter in LI, when in many cases the weapon is often the only distinction between units, like its rich hearing that from someone with 2 las and 2 kheres on their dreads who want me to remember its actually 4 kheres or 4 las, this same person is then going to be upset that I'm a slow learner to their vast and complicated series of colours and numbers to designate which model belongs to which detachment. Some people are using weapon loadout to distinguish similar units, some are using numerology and pagan symbolism, like there are other fish to fry trying to have on objective standard for all participants. If the same person modelling a lascanon left sponson and an autocannon right sponson thinking that's fine, also expects others to check under every base "oh ye this was 32 orange section 6" that's so far removed from reality. At least in terms of an event/tournament.

its not about events with markings for me, its about how I can keep track of things, and on the list formations are noted as "RED", "GREEN" etc as thats how I keep track of them

for my 40k Guard I used similar to what I'm planning here for the platoon stuff (even though it hardly mattered)

base troops, say the tactical bods here, get solid blue say as a base colour. each squad then had a different pattern in white

so you can see what is part of what

the key bit is to have the only thing that matters be the models on the table being able to physically count up, the initial sizes recorded so dead stuff can go in a box to sort out later

bods in buildings are easy, stick those that fit on them, and the rest up tight behind the building, typically angled againt it so they can be seen not to be in play

stuff in transports is harder, often deployed along the baseline towards the sides

if the "book keeping" goes beyond a side of A4 something is being done wrongly

you don't actually need to mark the bases either, worse case a small coloured counter near the unit, stick the order counter adjacent to it and then keep units a few inches apart

if someone wants to cheat this sort of stuff they will, a somewhat sad fact of life

and I agree on the point about space for sideboards.

personally not expecting massive issues, time will tell though


Automatically Appended Next Post:
as an aside, it is worth taking that event perspective for "how can this be done in a simple and easy to audit way?". because once that works its easy to port to more casual games

and harder to go the other way

however there are many games where casualties need tracking against units, or formations.

I think here the way to go is make it so the dead pile flat out doesn't matter, what matters is whats on the table.

"Formation five has 26 models, a break point of 13, how many are alive?" (counts up) "14, so not yet broken, one away"

the game on Saturday had that question "how many more to break them?" asked a few times

leopard wrote:
its not about events with markings for me, its about how I can keep track of things, and on the list formations are noted as "RED", "GREEN" etc as thats how I keep track of them

for my 40k Guard I used similar to what I'm planning here for the platoon stuff (even though it hardly mattered)

base troops, say the tactical bods here, get solid blue say as a base colour. each squad then had a different pattern in white

so you can see what is part of what

the key bit is to have the only thing that matters be the models on the table being able to physically count up, the initial sizes recorded so dead stuff can go in a box to sort out later

bods in buildings are easy, stick those that fit on them, and the rest up tight behind the building, typically angled againt it so they can be seen not to be in play

stuff in transports is harder, often deployed along the baseline towards the sides

if the "book keeping" goes beyond a side of A4 something is being done wrongly

you don't actually need to mark the bases either, worse case a small coloured counter near the unit, stick the order counter adjacent to it and then keep units a few inches apart

if someone wants to cheat this sort of stuff they will, a somewhat sad fact of life

and I agree on the point about space for sideboards.

personally not expecting massive issues, time will tell though

Okay but understand in an event with 10-20 people, if there's any dispute or question over the count, how does a third party come in and detangle this without doing their own count? A single pile isn't going to work with like 3+ formations if it matters which formation each model came from. Even with 3 identical formations, every single model, lets say solar aux, every single tank, every single infantry it's not just a matter of count, its matter of does it belong to formation 1, 2 or 3. Think vote counting, all a TO can do is come in and give their own objective count, but again, one count is very different than 3 counts, or 4, or 5.

Good point about transports, that's another chunk of sideboard that may potentially need to be carved out, we didn't have any transports in our game, but if we did that'd be yet one more thing to need a system like the structures.

What I'm proposing is one count, so as you say even if your dead pile is right into a box or display case, it can still be counted. It doesn't have to be organized. It's a massive level of difference. It's that or junk the entire rule at a certain point level. It's not the end of the world at a 1000pts, at 2-3000, it's a total non-starter.

 Crablezworth wrote:

leopard wrote:
its not about events with markings for me, its about how I can keep track of things, and on the list formations are noted as "RED", "GREEN" etc as thats how I keep track of them

for my 40k Guard I used similar to what I'm planning here for the platoon stuff (even though it hardly mattered)

base troops, say the tactical bods here, get solid blue say as a base colour. each squad then had a different pattern in white

so you can see what is part of what

the key bit is to have the only thing that matters be the models on the table being able to physically count up, the initial sizes recorded so dead stuff can go in a box to sort out later

bods in buildings are easy, stick those that fit on them, and the rest up tight behind the building, typically angled againt it so they can be seen not to be in play

stuff in transports is harder, often deployed along the baseline towards the sides

if the "book keeping" goes beyond a side of A4 something is being done wrongly

you don't actually need to mark the bases either, worse case a small coloured counter near the unit, stick the order counter adjacent to it and then keep units a few inches apart

if someone wants to cheat this sort of stuff they will, a somewhat sad fact of life

and I agree on the point about space for sideboards.

personally not expecting massive issues, time will tell though

Okay but understand in an event with 10-20 people, if there's any dispute or question over the count, how does a third party come in and detangle this without doing their own count? A single pile isn't going to work with like 3+ formations if it matters which formation each model came from. Even with 3 identical formations, every single model, lets say solar aux, every single tank, every single infantry it's not just a matter of count, its matter of does it belong to formation 1, 2 or 3. Think vote counting, all a TO can do is come in and give their own objective count, but again, one count is very different than 3 counts, or 4, or 5.

What I'm proposing is one count, so as you say even if your dead pile is right into a box or display case, it can still be counted. It doesn't have to be organized. It's a massive level of difference.

totally understand, needs to be unambiguous, no argument if that cannon is one of them or counts as several against the break point (joke)

I think as noted in a follow on the trick is to make the dead pile unimportant and focus on "how many are alive?" as they will still be on the table. How many in a detachment should be simple, the issue is which detachment is which formation. Well if you have say 6-7 formation I think the answer is a token of some sort adjacent to each one, coloured, numbered, whatever - with the colour and number noted on the list

so say three Marine Demi Companies, Red, Blue, Green, two armoured in Pink and White, a bastion formation in black. numbering may be easier.

since the break point is half its easy to count up or down.

I would suggest for an event the TO should state in the event pack how they want this to be done, then everyone follows that

leopard wrote:
base troops, say the tactical bods here, get solid blue say as a base colour. each squad then had a different pattern in white

you don't actually need to mark the bases either, worse case a small coloured counter near the unit, stick the order counter adjacent to it and then keep units a few inches apart

Painting model/painting base is basically same but base has two advantages. a) it can work better lore wise(the marines have certain colour scheme after all) b) easier to spot. While you could have formation symbol as shoulder pad edge...for one mkvi don't have shoulder pad edges and base edge is lot more visible...

ahh sorry to clarify I mean painting the actual base, the 25mm disc, I use small marking on the back. base edge is steel legion drab, so far only a red and a blue unit marked up for SA, without the initial formation marking as I've only got one formation.

colours on the base rim are a lot easier to repaint, and if I was going to an event I would repaint to match the lists being used.

vehicles are a bit harder, lacking the base, however I'm hoping not to mess with the formations that often so for example my SA armour currently has a red band with a narrower white band centred as a formation marking. another formation will get say the same with blue

it is possible to add the unit markings to models, and I need to come up with something to denote rhinos to formations (benefit of printing them is I can print up plenty, downside is having to then paint the lot)

I think they key bit here is that its not me it has to be clear to, its my opponent. I can see expanding the base rim stuff to match what I did for Flames, the base rims being similar sizes

there the coloured square gets a black outline to make it stand out, and "special" units e.g. support troops within a tactical detachment get a clear marking to show that. and then its all replicated on the front

will have to paint some up and show it, with an example of how its clarified back onto a list.

that said if there are those here reading who organise events, how would you recommend doing this?

The 'army break point' was used in Epic: 40,000, so it's not inherently a bad idea – but it would work very differently to the way the game is set out. That in turn would impact people's army lists, choices etc. Personally, I think if you're looking for a tournament/event-friendly solution, changing the rules in such a fundamental way seems a bit of a non-starter.

I think a simple idea would be to hand out a sheet of paper for both players to use. This would have boxes for formations and (say) a hundred tick boxes in each box. Before the game, the player puts a mark to show the size of their formation, and the halfway (break) point, and crosses out all of the excess boxes. The opponent then 'ticks off' casualties as they're caused.

Importantly, from a third party point of view, it doesn't require much space and provides a neutral record.

+Edit+
Worked up a quick visual:



100 might well be far too many for typical formations, but the principle is hopefully clear.

A system that has me mandating how people paint stuff is untennable for an event standard, I'd argue it untennable in general as a game mechanic where its already hard enough just to get people to paint period. That's just not a solution. I'm looking to able to administer a solution to the problem, not create more problems. A token next to every model in a mass battle game designed for hundreds of models is a non-starter too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Apologist wrote:
The 'army break point' was used in Epic: 40,000, so it's not inherently a bad idea – but it would work very differently to the way the game is set out. That in turn would impact people's army lists, choices etc. Personally, I think if you're looking for a tournament/event-friendly solution, changing the rules in such a fundamental way seems a bit of a non-starter.

I think a simple idea would be to hand out a sheet of paper for both players to use. This would have boxes for formations and (say) a hundred tick boxes in each box. Before the game, the player puts a mark to show the size of their formation, and the halfway (break) point, and crosses out all of the excess boxes. The opponent then 'ticks off' casualties as they're caused.

Importantly, from a third party point of view, it doesn't require much space and provides a neutral record.

Have you ever volunteered or worked an election? The count isn't built on trust, in fact it's designed to have 2 or more people count it to ensure accuracy. At least here in Canada on provincial level.


You're not thinking in terms of errors or mistakes or miscommunication, people are making decisions on what to target based on breaking points. I or other TO is called to a dispute over breaking points, how do I untangle that if "he said x unit was from y formation, so i targetted it, but it turns out its from z formation, but he accidentally pulled a model from formation x. Like, none of this is something I can help with unless I've been watching the entire game. I also can't conjur up more space for sideboard if the board has a lot of structures and transports. This is so much a logistics thing too. its untenable from so many perspectives, administratively, physically.

Like oh you did colour? We're doing number designations for formations for this event, so just re-number you 147 mode list, I'll wait. Oh looks like you've got two 37's there, oopsie.

 Crablezworth wrote:
A system that has me mandating how people paint stuff is untennable for an event standard, I'd argue it untennable in general as a game mechanic where its already hard enough just to get people to paint period. That's just not a solution. I'm looking to able to administer a solution to the problem, not create more problems. A token next to every model in a mass battle game designed for hundreds of models is a non-starter too.

well its not a token next to each model, its next to each detachment to show which formation its part of. and since each detachment is getting an order token next to it anyway the volume of them is either workable or there is already a problem

I also suspect that in practice the sort of detachment people have quite a few of will be the exact sort of detachment that has an on table strength of 100% or 0% anyway


that marked sheet with the circles works, or an excel version with Squares, nice idea to have the enemy marking it off, done right you can also add the unit stats etc to it avoiding the need to keep asking perhaps (or at least any faction rules)

 Apologist wrote:
My plan is to give the blast markers from Epic 40,000/Armageddon a new lease of life, by using them to visually mark casualties. Adds a little drama to the visuals, and will be a nice visual reminder of break points: lots of blast markers? Check against the formation.

That’s a nice one.
My big idea was a sheet with a list of formations and their break points, with dice to count casualties. That way your minis can go back in the case where they belong and you save a bunch of space.

 Apologist wrote:
The 'army break point' was used in Epic: 40,000, so it's not inherently a bad idea – but it would work very differently to the way the game is set out. That in turn would impact people's army lists, choices etc. Personally, I think if you're looking for a tournament/event-friendly solution, changing the rules in such a fundamental way seems a bit of a non-starter.

I think a simple idea would be to hand out a sheet of paper for both players to use. This would have boxes for formations and (say) a hundred tick boxes in each box. Before the game, the player puts a mark to show the size of their formation, and the halfway (break) point, and crosses out all of the excess boxes. The opponent then 'ticks off' casualties as they're caused.

Importantly, from a third party point of view, it doesn't require much space and provides a neutral record.

+Edit+
Worked up a quick visual:



100 might well be far too many for typical formations, but the principle is hopefully clear.

Knowing the count isn't the only problem, veriftying the count is the problem, if those are votes for x y or z, i can make 3 piles of x y an z from a dead pile and check it agains the tick boxes but if that dead pile is one pile in a box and not seperated by formation, its a much longer process, and all of this assumes a universal tracking system that the event can mandate, events can barely mandate being painted, let alone how.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr_Rose wrote:

 Apologist wrote:
My plan is to give the blast markers from Epic 40,000/Armageddon a new lease of life, by using them to visually mark casualties. Adds a little drama to the visuals, and will be a nice visual reminder of break points: lots of blast markers? Check against the formation.

That’s a nice one.
My big idea was a sheet with a list of formations and their break points, with dice to count casualties. That way your minis can go back in the case where they belong and you save a bunch of space.

That doesn't work for an event though, because a dispute in count would lead to having to dump said case back on the board and divide out the dead to verify count/formation.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

leopard wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
A system that has me mandating how people paint stuff is untennable for an event standard, I'd argue it untennable in general as a game mechanic where its already hard enough just to get people to paint period. That's just not a solution. I'm looking to able to administer a solution to the problem, not create more problems. A token next to every model in a mass battle game designed for hundreds of models is a non-starter too.

well its not a token next to each model, its next to each detachment to show which formation its part of. and since each detachment is getting an order token next to it anyway the volume of them is either workable or there is already a problem

I also suspect that in practice the sort of detachment people have quite a few of will be the exact sort of detachment that has an on table strength of 100% or 0% anyway


that marked sheet with the circles works, or an excel version with Squares, nice idea to have the enemy marking it off, done right you can also add the unit stats etc to it avoiding the need to keep asking perhaps (or at least any faction rules)

There's already a problem just getting enough order tokens. That won't be a problem soon, but now you've doubled the token on the board, and as an event I have to now mandate a token system for a game with like 20+ detachments on the board at 1000pts.

 Crablezworth wrote:

 Apologist wrote:
The 'army break point' was used in Epic: 40,000, so it's not inherently a bad idea – but it would work very differently to the way the game is set out. That in turn would impact people's army lists, choices etc. Personally, I think if you're looking for a tournament/event-friendly solution, changing the rules in such a fundamental way seems a bit of a non-starter.

I think a simple idea would be to hand out a sheet of paper for both players to use. This would have boxes for formations and (say) a hundred tick boxes in each box. Before the game, the player puts a mark to show the size of their formation, and the halfway (break) point, and crosses out all of the excess boxes. The opponent then 'ticks off' casualties as they're caused.

Importantly, from a third party point of view, it doesn't require much space and provides a neutral record.

+Edit+
Worked up a quick visual:



100 might well be far too many for typical formations, but the principle is hopefully clear.

Knowing the count isn't the only problem, veriftying the count is the problem, if those are votes for x y or z, i can make 3 piles of x y an z from a dead pile and check it agains the tick boxes but if that dead pile is one pile in a box and not seperated by formation, its a much longer process, and all of this assumes a universal tracking system that the event can mandate, events can barely mandate being painted, let alone how.

thats why you don't bother with the dead pile, but verify against what is alive and on the table.

if the army list says the 3rd formation had two detachments of 8 infantry, a command stand and a detachment of three tanks its up to the controlling player to be able to point to them on the table, if they are not there - or clearly denoted as in transports etc, they must be dead

point is stuff thats on the table isn't taking up any more space than the table itself, and then the dead pile can be in a box of out sight as it no longer matters

if a formation has say 16 things in it it doesn't matter if you count casualties up to the break point or count survivors down to it, the break point doesn't move and then there is no longer any need to sort the casualties into separate heaps

 Crablezworth wrote:
That doesn't work for an event though, because a dispute in count would lead to having to dump said case back on the board and divide out the dead to verify count/formation.

No because then you just count the models on the table as others have said. If A-B=C then A-C=B must also be true.

leopard wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

 Apologist wrote:
The 'army break point' was used in Epic: 40,000, so it's not inherently a bad idea – but it would work very differently to the way the game is set out. That in turn would impact people's army lists, choices etc. Personally, I think if you're looking for a tournament/event-friendly solution, changing the rules in such a fundamental way seems a bit of a non-starter.

I think a simple idea would be to hand out a sheet of paper for both players to use. This would have boxes for formations and (say) a hundred tick boxes in each box. Before the game, the player puts a mark to show the size of their formation, and the halfway (break) point, and crosses out all of the excess boxes. The opponent then 'ticks off' casualties as they're caused.

Importantly, from a third party point of view, it doesn't require much space and provides a neutral record.

+Edit+
Worked up a quick visual:



100 might well be far too many for typical formations, but the principle is hopefully clear.

Knowing the count isn't the only problem, veriftying the count is the problem, if those are votes for x y or z, i can make 3 piles of x y an z from a dead pile and check it agains the tick boxes but if that dead pile is one pile in a box and not seperated by formation, its a much longer process, and all of this assumes a universal tracking system that the event can mandate, events can barely mandate being painted, let alone how.

thats why you don't bother with the dead pile, but verify against what is alive and on the table.

if the army list says the 3rd formation had two detachments of 8 infantry, a command stand and a detachment of three tanks its up to the controlling player to be able to point to them on the table, if they are not there - or clearly denoted as in transports etc, they must be dead

point is stuff thats on the table isn't taking up any more space than the table itself, and then the dead pile can be in a box of out sight as it no longer matters

if a formation has say 16 things in it it doesn't matter if you count casualties up to the break point or count survivors down to it, the break point doesn't move and then there is no longer any need to sort the casualties into separate heaps

Okay and when he points to two identically armed and sized detachments, I'm to be able to independent verify without having to trust him that this detachment of 6 ogryns is totally not the one from that other formation. You could literally have the same formation 3 times, each unit, identical numbers and weapons. Without even a rule mandating some kind of uniformity, you could have the same formation, same point costs, and go out of your way to have different weapons on everything and its not that helpful either "no no you see the is the 6 malcador unit with 3 las turrets, 4 demolishers, 2 batttlecannon and 1 vanquishers... not the one with 1 las turret, 3 demolishers, 2 vanquishers, and 3 battlecannons.. I have system you see...." I've gone cross eyed.



A one off game with friends and in-built trust is very different than community building where that trust has to also be built. So in the context of running events, standards really need to form to make up for areas the game didn't account for. Like I need to modify things path of least resistance so there's one standard for all participants. That's far and away from people's personal organziational strategies and colour/number/other physical model modification.

if you have an opponent who is going to try to use deception like that all bets are off.

but that is why those three identical detachments, from three different formations, each at a different formation casualty level need a way to indicate which formation they are part of. a coloured token or something

and the beauty of that is simple, say two formations of four Ogyrn move so they mingle, then split, it doesn't matter which four get which token as they are interchangable at that point - having been one block any could be from either so as long as they move apart in two groups its fine

and at any time you can say, and indeed see, which detachments, and at what strength currently are on the table from any formation. count them up, oh look there are 13 left, the formation started with 20, so its not broken yet

doesn't matter which 13 are alive, all that matters is formation good/formation bad

drop tiddlywinks next to each, stick a small MDF token with a number of it next to each - point being with this system you need something and counting whats on the table is path of least resistance


Automatically Appended Next Post:
tl;dr version.

step one, you have an army list, with formations listed, you need this anyway

step two, number the formations and work out the formation break point, including fractions, write down the point at which it breaks both in terms of stands destroyed and stands remaining

step three, when deploying a detachment stick a numbered token with it to show which formation its from - if there is no other unambiguous way to determine this (e.g. "I've only got one unit of Kratos in my list, in the third formation" probably doesn't need marking, but for clarity mark it anyway)

step four, at any time you can see which detachments are from which formation, and count the models to compare to the written break point

and note step four essentially is replacing "count models in the dead pile", and the counter next to them is replacing having to keep the dead stuff sorted

and anyone who will try and cheat this is the sort of person who is likely to stick a model in the "wrong dead pile by mistake" anyway

leopard wrote:
if you have an opponent who is going to try to use deception like that all bets are off.

but that is why those three identical detachments, from three different formations, each at a different formation casualty level need a way to indicate which formation they are part of. a coloured token or something

and the beauty of that is simple, say two formations of four Ogyrn move so they mingle, then split, it doesn't matter which four get which token as they are interchangable at that point - having been one block any could be from either so as long as they move apart in two groups its fine

and at any time you can say, and indeed see, which detachments, and at what strength currently are on the table from any formation. count them up, oh look there are 13 left, the formation started with 20, so its not broken yet

doesn't matter which 13 are alive, all that matters is formation good/formation bad

drop tiddlywinks next to each, stick a small MDF token with a number of it next to each - point being with this system you need something and counting whats on the table is path of least resistance

An event isn't built on trust, trust but verify, you submit lists, you document and show what you're taking, this is asked of all participants, one standard. Every single 40k/30k event I've ever done would have been impossible if I had to create a colour/number/token system for all participants to follow. Again I'm not looking for ways to create more problems, none of this is tenable for a big event.

Like I'm looking for a solution that sees me not telling everyone how to paint and document their own models, that can only come from an objective count of models, it can't take in other contexts at scale. Titanicus fell apart after rabout 7 titans for similar logistical reasons. You don't have infinite sideboard or endless time, all those titan mega battles got to about turn 2 in a weekend's worth of playing.

As @MarkNorfolk, westiebestie and SherryPie say above, breaking formations is a key part of the strategy, so altering the rules in such a way fundamentally changes things. I'm just not convinced that it's necessary – the game is explicitly 'crunch-heavy' and aimed at experienced players, so I'd hope you could expect a certain level of honesty and sense of fair play.

If independent verification is absolutely vital – and I can see why a competitive tournament would want that – then the Army Break Point idea you outline above seems reasonable. Personally, I think it might be a bit heavy-handed.

If you do pursue that idea, I suggest you 'market it' to the players by having it as a special rule for all the missions e.g.
Strategic conquest Ignore the Break Point rules in the main rulebook and instead [yadayadayada]'
...rather than an addendum. Exactly the same effect, but you don't have to justify altering the main rules.


If you're willing to loose the reins a bit, there are other options to tracking casualties – a few of which have been suggested above.

I guess the fundamental question is how much you want to affect the fundmentals of the game for the majority of participants, in order to to ensure accuracy for the particular edge case of a dispute arising, the players not being able to resolve it amicably, and calling in a referee.

 Apologist wrote:
As @MarkNorfolk, westiebestie and SherryPie say above, breaking formations is a key part of the strategy, so altering the rules in such a way fundamentally changes things. I'm just not convinced that it's necessary – the game is explicitly 'crunch-heavy' and aimed at experienced players, so I'd hope you could expect a certain level of honesty and sense of fair play.

If independent verification is absolutely vital – and I can see why a competitive tournament would want that – then the Army Break Point idea you outline above seems reasonable. Personally, I think it might be a bit heavy-handed.

If you do pursue that idea, I suggest you 'market it' to the players by having it as a special rule for all the missions e.g.
Strategic conquest Ignore the Break Point rules in the main rulebook and instead [yadayadayada]'
...rather than an addendum. Exactly the same effect, but you don't have to justify altering the main rules.


If you're willing to loose the reins a bit, there are other options to tracking casualties – a few of which have been suggested above.

I guess the fundamental question is how much you want to affect the fundmentals of the game for the majority of participants, in order to to ensure accuracy for the particular edge case of a dispute arising, the players not being able to resolve it amicably, and calling in a referee.

Yeah I'd market it a a special rules of the event/scenario and explain how it makes the event even possible. The reality is, I understand it alters the game, but its an alteration that makes an event even possible. The event would also require lists, meaning documentation of not just detachment composition but loadouts in the case of vehicles/knights/titans. And possibly further having to institute some kind if policy on mixed weapon loadouts. There's a lot to have to document and ask fo all participants but some asks are just impossible.

An event that may see people travel to play, a lot more needs to go into making that work because it means players are likely in many cases playing one anothere for the first time, which is very different than regular opponents/club members.

the way the rules are written you have to be able to trace a detachment on the table back to its home formation, you have to do that even tracking dead stuff to a formation card of some sort - if not how do you know where to put it when it dies?

there is literally no way around having to know this

having it actually on the table is the clearest way of doing it - short of re-writing the rules to ignore formation break points, which seems to be a reasonably important part of the game

I also don't see why, in a game thats going to require players to bring a pot of tokens to issue orders with anyway why the idea of "you need one marker per detachment with a number indicating which formation its part of that can be put adjacent to it, with the order token is considered game breaking somehow

say a 3k game, likely 5-6 formations? a few high value special assets and then each formation has maybe 4-5 detachments. thats what 30 odd units in game?

seems a token system to track them is probably the easiest way of doing it, and takes far less space than sideboards etc which can then be used for say transports - and with a duplicate marker for the transports its now also very easy to mark who is riding in what

and yes I can see why AT falls apart, you have no way not to have the terminals, a bit like how Star Fleet Battles works well with one ship or a small squadron but needs a trained librarian and several assistants if you go for a full fleet battle

if you are crating an event for LI and, I think correctly, see the need to be able to audit a game in its current state at any point a way to denote which formation is which is required.

though this is actually a bit easier, if say you have two detachments of four Leman Russ in an armoured formation with a pair of Baneblades say, thats three tokens, all identical linking to the formation - it doesn't matter which Leman russ formation lost a model, just that you know the formation as a whole lost one


Automatically Appended Next Post:
incidentally, I also suggest the way to actually resolve this isn't theoryhammering, but to try multiple different methods in actual games and see how it works

leopard wrote:
the way the rules are written you have to be able to trace a detachment on the table back to its home formation, you have to do that even tracking dead stuff to a formation card of some sort - if not how do you know where to put it when it dies?

there is literally no way around having to know this

having it actually on the table is the clearest way of doing it - short of re-writing the rules to ignore formation break points, which seems to be a reasonably important part of the game

I also don't see why, in a game thats going to require players to bring a pot of tokens to issue orders with anyway why the idea of "you need one marker per detachment with a number indicating which formation its part of that can be put adjacent to it, with the order token is considered game breaking somehow

say a 3k game, likely 5-6 formations? a few high value special assets and then each formation has maybe 4-5 detachments. thats what 30 odd units in game?

seems a token system to track them is probably the easiest way of doing it, and takes far less space than sideboards etc which can then be used for say transports - and with a duplicate marker for the transports its now also very easy to mark who is riding in what

and yes I can see why AT falls apart, you have no way not to have the terminals, a bit like how Star Fleet Battles works well with one ship or a small squadron but needs a trained librarian and several assistants if you go for a full fleet battle

if you are crating an event for LI and, I think correctly, see the need to be able to audit a game in its current state at any point a way to denote which formation is which is required.

though this is actually a bit easier, if say you have two detachments of four Leman Russ in an armoured formation with a pair of Baneblades say, thats three tokens, all identical linking to the formation - it doesn't matter which Leman russ formation lost a model, just that you know the formation as a whole lost one


Automatically Appended Next Post:
incidentally, I also suggest the way to actually resolve this isn't theoryhammering, but to try multiple different methods in actual games and see how it works

I'm not looking to discuss this in the context of one off games vs a regular opponent. Like I'm not trying to move the goal posts, you're just not understanding this from the perspective of having to administer it for like 20 plus attendees, its a nightmare. I just simply don't have the ability to run an event without altering breaking point, I'm not celebrating this or saying anyone needs to adopt it for normal play. It's like trying to run an AT event without the terminals, it just wouldn't work IMO It's also just one of the issues that needs smoothing out, also stil need to fight ever wyswyg policies ect. And there's crossover there for sure with documenting breaking point. As mentioned earlier, I hadn't even considered the side board that may potentially need to be carved out just for units on both sides in transports. So it may already be a game like AT that actually needs a lot of sideboard outside of any other factor, I gotta pick my battles.

I have played in events with other games where exactly this sort of thing occurs, hence the follow on comment about trying this in action, firstly see exactly how much of a problem it is - and it obviously is a problem as at some point a form of record keeping is needed - which as you have rightly pointed out needs to be easy for an event organiser or judge to understand, without it having to be explained, and is equally hard to game, either on purpose or accidentally.

in smaller games or more informally it may or may not matter, and while some sort of painted mark is the best way (avoids tokens and paper entirely) as you note its not practical to impose.

as I see it the issue you are posing is that say you, as an organiser, need to be able to go to a table, at any point and either check, or be requested to check one or both sides current state.

you need to be able to quickly and clearly determine which formations are and are not broken to resolve any disputes

and as an event coordinator space is a consideration so the idea of sideboards full of formation diagrams is impractical, even if that were not also subject to manipulation and shell gaming

as I see it the only way to resolve that is to have a way, hardly matters what, but a defined way to say "this detachment is part of that formation and it has taken this many casualties" to total up casualties for the formation against a defined breakpoint.

for me you can count losses or count survivors, both methods work, and in informal games count whichever is easier, but it needs to be essentially "at a glance"

if you can look at say formation #4, and see it has 16 models remaining, by counting them, its solved the issue.

the issue is then one of "how do you denote which formation a detachment is from?"


Automatically Appended Next Post:
oh yes, and the transports issue is a bit more in depth as well.

note hits can only be scored on models the firing unit can see, say four rhinos but they can only see two, it now matters who is in which one... (assuming you have units with different types of stands in them)

again something to work out that may not matter in more casual games

its a side issue, but another to consider

I'd personally go for painted markings but as you note thats likely not practical.

what I would however suggest is that this is made to be the players problem, they need to make it clear who is in what and what detachment is from where - if I was to arrange and event I'd consider having a couple of ways this can be done, with a "pick one and stick to it" rule

e.g. if you have painted markings, use that, if not it may be tokens, or some other solution but it needs to be clear and critically not slow the game down or clutter that table more than strictly unavoidable

it is an interesting problem

leopard wrote:
I have played in events with other games where exactly this sort of thing occurs, hence the follow on comment about trying this in action, firstly see exactly how much of a problem it is - and it obviously is a problem as at some point a form of record keeping is needed - which as you have rightly pointed out needs to be easy for an event organiser or judge to understand, without it having to be explained, and is equally hard to game, either on purpose or accidentally.

in smaller games or more informally it may or may not matter, and while some sort of painted mark is the best way (avoids tokens and paper entirely) as you note its not practical to impose.

as I see it the issue you are posing is that say you, as an organiser, need to be able to go to a table, at any point and either check, or be requested to check one or both sides current state.

you need to be able to quickly and clearly determine which formations are and are not broken to resolve any disputes

and as an event coordinator space is a consideration so the idea of sideboards full of formation diagrams is impractical, even if that were not also subject to manipulation and shell gaming

as I see it the only way to resolve that is to have a way, hardly matters what, but a defined way to say "this detachment is part of that formation and it has taken this many casualties" to total up casualties for the formation against a defined breakpoint.

for me you can count losses or count survivors, both methods work, and in informal games count whichever is easier, but it needs to be essentially "at a glance"

if you can look at say formation #4, and see it has 16 models remaining, by counting them, its solved the issue.

the issue is then one of "how do you denote which formation a detachment is from?"


Automatically Appended Next Post:
oh yes, and the transports issue is a bit more in depth as well.

note hits can only be scored on models the firing unit can see, say four rhinos but they can only see two, it now matters who is in which one... (assuming you have units with different types of stands in them)

again something to work out that may not matter in more casual games

its a side issue, but another to consider

I'd personally go for painted markings but as you note thats likely not practical.

what I would however suggest is that this is made to be the players problem, they need to make it clear who is in what and what detachment is from where - if I was to arrange and event I'd consider having a couple of ways this can be done, with a "pick one and stick to it" rule

e.g. if you have painted markings, use that, if not it may be tokens, or some other solution but it needs to be clear and critically not slow the game down or clutter that table more than strictly unavoidable

it is an interesting problem

In the case of just what detachments were in what building, my opponent had two identical 8 strong units of terminators both in buildings at one point. So even that, with documentation and mutual trust, was a mistake almost made in terms of taking wounded from the wrong building number. This is stuff that can happen between friends, so untangling it between first time opponents is bound to happen outside of breaking point or other considerations. And doin all of this on a 1 foot sideboard would be... oof. As it is already the rules for structures are so involved I'd have to make a tonne of new terrain just to included those in an event to begin with, whether or not i can formulate one system for the event to track who is in what structure.

if the identical units in a building are from the same formation it matters less (as the enemy targets one and can say "the damaged one" etc). but yes if they are from different formations it all stacks up

and no way its working on a 12" wide sideboard, especially not as the rules, dice etc have to live somewhere

while maybe not that practical here for vehicles "casualties" can be denoted by having a smoke or flame marker for the vehicle, removable turrets etc - woirks in 15mm but I suspect not that practical in 8mm - pity as its very visual