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 I've come up with a scenario that has both players placing objectives before either side knows what the deployment will ultimately be. This is something that worked well in 40k's pas and I'm hoping for it to work well here. 

The psychology is simple, you can't really act on information you don't have at the time and with not only 3 different possible deployment maps but also one of them having 4 potential deployment zones its not an easy thing to game. 

End game scoring is there to keep try and keep the tempo of the battle from being too top weighted as we tend to see in progressive scoring. 

In addition to end game scoring, you get a victory point for every enemy command squad you take out. 

And finally there's an admittedly somewhat involved tactical reserve rule that is optional. Reason being is it involves a lot of added communication between players so both must agree to it as both players would need to know at the list building/army construction stage. 

The intent of the tactical reserves is to hopefully create a steady stream of reserves with the intent that it will keep the game from being too top heavy and also limit the overall amount of activations on he board at any one time as you can imagine your tactical reserves trickling in to make up for losses in your initially deployed forces, but instead of the weight of both sides deploying a full 2 or 3k from the start, they're more or less playing at half that level but replenishing their losses. So a 2k games would be longer 1k game if, a 3k game would be a longer 1.5k game and so on. The hope is for closer games and games that are more engaging to both sides that don't end up in a blow out or a run away vp score. 

 Crablezworth wrote:
So I've come up with a scenario that has both players placing objectives before either side knows what the deployment will ultimately be. This is something that worked well in 40k's pas and I'm hoping for it to work well here. 

The psychology is simple, you can't really act on information you don't have at the time and with not only 3 different possible deployment maps but also one of them having 4 potential deployment zones its not an easy thing to game. 

End game scoring is there to keep try and keep the tempo of the battle from being too top weighted as we tend to see in progressive scoring. 

In addition to end game scoring, you get a victory point for every enemy command squad you take out. 

And finally there's an admittedly somewhat involved tactical reserve rule that is optional. Reason being is it involves a lot of added communication between players so both must agree to it as both players would need to know at the list building/army construction stage. 

The intent of the tactical reserves is to hopefully create a steady stream of reserves with the intent that it will keep the game from being too top heavy and also limit the overall amount of activations on he board at any one time as you can imagine your tactical reserves trickling in to make up for losses in your initially deployed forces, but instead of the weight of both sides deploying a full 2 or 3k from the start, they're more or less playing at half that level but replenishing their losses. So a 2k games would be longer 1k game if, a 3k game would be a longer 1.5k game and so on. The hope is for closer games and games that are more engaging to both sides that don't end up in a blow out or a run away vp score. 

I like it. Reminds me of Epic Armageddon.

I have to remember to print it and add it to the rulebook. But yes, I would keep reserves optional.

Observation: maybe there isn't much alive at the end of the game in order to score if we do not use reserves...

Rolling for reserves is generally too feast or famine IMHO. But I like the idea of reserves

stratigo wrote:
Rolling for reserves is generally too feast or famine IMHO. But I like the idea of reserves

Well you're not wrong that it can lead to one side having fairly good luck on reserves and the other possibly not, but what I like in general about random reserves is I don't feel the weight/responsibility of too much choice, sorta deal the hand you're given so to speak. I can see fine tweaking the odds as well, if 4+ turn two is seeing too much come in turn 2 on average than maybe 5+ turn 2, 4+ turn 3 and automatic on turn 4.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

SU-152 wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
So I've come up with a scenario that has both players placing objectives before either side knows what the deployment will ultimately be. This is something that worked well in 40k's pas and I'm hoping for it to work well here. 

The psychology is simple, you can't really act on information you don't have at the time and with not only 3 different possible deployment maps but also one of them having 4 potential deployment zones its not an easy thing to game. 

End game scoring is there to keep try and keep the tempo of the battle from being too top weighted as we tend to see in progressive scoring. 

In addition to end game scoring, you get a victory point for every enemy command squad you take out. 

And finally there's an admittedly somewhat involved tactical reserve rule that is optional. Reason being is it involves a lot of added communication between players so both must agree to it as both players would need to know at the list building/army construction stage. 

The intent of the tactical reserves is to hopefully create a steady stream of reserves with the intent that it will keep the game from being too top heavy and also limit the overall amount of activations on he board at any one time as you can imagine your tactical reserves trickling in to make up for losses in your initially deployed forces, but instead of the weight of both sides deploying a full 2 or 3k from the start, they're more or less playing at half that level but replenishing their losses. So a 2k games would be longer 1k game if, a 3k game would be a longer 1.5k game and so on. The hope is for closer games and games that are more engaging to both sides that don't end up in a blow out or a run away vp score. 

I like it. Reminds me of Epic Armageddon.

I have to remember to print it and add it to the rulebook. But yes, I would keep reserves optional.

Observation: maybe there isn't much alive at the end of the game in order to score if we do not use reserves...

Ya I feel like at lower point levels there's a diminishing benefit to reserves but as points creep up towards 2/3k it might lead to a more even tempo'd game.

Choice is good. Look by the time turn 4 rolls around, your units probably won't matter so forcing people to wait til then based on dice luck is kinda rough.

If you want to make it conditional, make in a condition that can be planned around, not just random dice.

stratigo wrote:
Choice is good. Look by the time turn 4 rolls around, your units probably won't matter so forcing people to wait til then based on dice luck is kinda rough.

If you want to make it conditional, make in a condition that can be planned around, not just random dice.

The whole point is to not have them choose to have everything show up turn two. In my case I don't want too much choice, too much choice is debilitating. When I was young I worked in camera sales, you don't show people more than 3 things (cameras/lenses) at any one time because variables and choice are actually daunting, So speaking for myself I don't like how daunting the game can feel as it scales up and I really don't want to be in charge/control/responsible for too much at any one time. A good example, if you play titanicus, there's only so much room and mental bandwidth in terms of terminals and commanding individual titans that after about 5-6, for me at least, it just becomes a slog and a bore and not fun, too much accounting and indecision.

In the case of the scenario, your main army that you deploy, elements of it in normal reserve you still have absolute control and choice over. So if it had terminators in reserve deep striking, you'd still have total control of them and when they come in. It's only the list/army in "strategic reserve" that is arriving by dice roll.

have a look at how Flames handles reserves, you have essentially three types, then a mechanic for bringing them in

"normal", some of your force starts off the table, you roll for it and bring it on along your table egde

"scattered", as above, except a dice roll is used for each unit to decide if its left, right or centre of your table edge

"delayed", as above, except you wait a few turns

these can be combined, e.g. delayed, scattered reserves are a thing, plus some scenarios have reserves arriving from a flank

the game also forces at least 40% of your points into reserve if the scenario uses them

then to bring stuff on you start rolling 1d6, then next turn 2d6, then three, then four. forget what the target number is to bring a unit on, also when you roll three or more dice you get at least one unit

makes it a bit less swingy as you are rolling per detachment, in Legions maybe roll for the formation(s) and have normal start turn one and delayed maybe turn 2 as a start with a 4+ to arrive

 Crablezworth wrote:

stratigo wrote:
Choice is good. Look by the time turn 4 rolls around, your units probably won't matter so forcing people to wait til then based on dice luck is kinda rough.

If you want to make it conditional, make in a condition that can be planned around, not just random dice.

The whole point is to not have them choose to have everything show up turn two. In my case I don't want too much choice, too much choice is debilitating. When I was young I worked in camera sales, you don't show people more than 3 things (cameras/lenses) at any one time because variables and choice are actually daunting, So speaking for myself I don't like how daunting the game can feel as it scales up and I really don't want to be in charge/control/responsible for too much at any one time. A good example, if you play titanicus, there's only so much room and mental bandwidth in terms of terminals and commanding individual titans that after about 5-6, for me at least, it just becomes a slog and a bore and not fun, too much accounting and indecision.

In the case of the scenario, your main army that you deploy, elements of it in normal reserve you still have absolute control and choice over. So if it had terminators in reserve deep striking, you'd still have total control of them and when they come in. It's only the list/army in "strategic reserve" that is arriving by dice roll.

Look, GW doing away with random dice rolls for reserves was nothing but a good thing for the games.

And this isn't a "too much choice". The choice is going to be clear 99 percent of the time. The earlier the better. If you really want to avoid everything being on turn two, build in conditions to when a unit can come in. A bit more effort in rules design, less on the table.

But also, yes, every game has a size that is good for it, and I think GW missed the size that is good for LI by like 1000 points

random reserve rolls do have a place, requires the game to be reasonably balanced though (oh dear)

specifically when one side is trying to hold ground against a stronger force but in a defensive position here random and delayed reserves work well, the rescue force is coming, but neither side know quite when. the attacker better get a move on

leopard wrote:
random reserve rolls do have a place, requires the game to be reasonably balanced though (oh dear)

specifically when one side is trying to hold ground against a stronger force but in a defensive position here random and delayed reserves work well, the rescue force is coming, but neither side know quite when. the attacker better get a move on

Yeah I just want a soft touch that not too easily gamed, the weakest part is randomizing which list deploys/goes in reserve.


But my main goal is as follows, prefaced again by saying this whole reserves part is optional, my goal is to reduce the amount of activations i have at any one time, choice is great, too much choice is a drag. A puppy is awesome, 15 puppies really take away the positives of puppy ownership. Choice is like alternating activation can be debilitating. If I just let people choose to bring in tactical reserves from turn 2 onward like everything else it just doesn't fix the front weighted/top weighted problem I'm trying to also address. I already want to push planes back to turn 2 or limit them turn one as well for similar reasons. Not to mention pods coming soon.

Because another concern is, like with infiltrate being a bit too unlimited/contained, deep strike allows a lot of control and choice, and outflank as well considering how much choice of where an outflanking detachment arrives. The problem is the game is difficult to contain due to the arbitrary nature of not just army construction but what separates a single detachment from an entire formation is super nebulous. A detachment could be like 30 points or 600 points. Comprise of like 2 models or 16. A formation could be like 3 models.

My only thought with making two separate lists was both parties know going in and hopefully make for themselves two fairly evenly distributed forces, but that again is just hoping that occurs. I also completely understand people's apprehension with rolling for reserves, and I'll give anyone that gets dice related ptsd from that concept the benefit of the doubt. I would also be incredibly open to game mechanics that might improve reserve rolls or give re-rolls, example, objectives or buildings or areas that don't grant victory points but temporrary reserve buffs if under one sides control, imagine a command bunker or air traffic control/space port control tower that if held allowed for a re-roll or a buff to the reserve roll.

Another idea was, an incentive where if you hold a detachment until turn 3, it can get outflank for free on account of spending 2 turns moving around the enemies position. Even then I fear its not enough of an incentive, especially if one fears getting shot off the board early by enemy planes and feeling you need every shot you can get. At the same time, too much choice and not enough guidance will be the death of this game. It's also psychology, the more players are used to some kind of limits the more they accept it. But if they're used to having no limitations at all its very hard to come back from that. Everything will seem rightfully arbitrary and I get that. For sake of argument lets say i make a bunch of 2k lists and average out the total formations and detachments. And again for sake of argument somehow the average land on i don't now 16 detachments/activations, maybe that's way off from anyone elses averages, maybe its super aberrant. But just grant me for sake of argument like most of my 2k lists average 18 detachments of varying sizes from 1 model to like i dunno 8 bases, and a scenario says either half of your detachments or just uhh at least 9 detachments must start in reserve, I get how totally random it looks and sounds and feels, it is. But lets even say for sake of argument the scenarios in he book said like over 2k you gotta start putting stuff in reserve out of sheer practicality of space and time, I can't help but feel more players would "get it". If youd on't have a bit of a conveyor belt of units arriving from reserve the game doesn't scale up well and sorta toopes over turn 2 after a very bloody series of endless alternating activations, The lower point games where both sides seemingly are less likely to have too much disparity in activation economy, lets say a half tank half infantry meta largely because that's what people have so far, its not bad, but it can really topple over at 3k.

Anyway, i don't think incentives are enough to get both players willingly putting detachments in reserve and picking a number of detachments/formations is difficult and arbitrary. I just know I would much prefer leaving some things to later turns and perhaps some element of luck or good fortune. I also know how impossible it is/going to be to pry total choice away from gamers. But I want some element of hoping the cavalry not only arrives in time but also in the right place, and in this case, people will still seemingly have great and unheard of levels of control where some detachments arrive, just not necessarily when. Even possibly going as far as saying planes fall into this category but if they have hover mode they can deploy in hover mode like a skimmer as normal. My though also is, it might help be a check on detachment sizes in general. I get the horror stories of every game turn 1 getting smoked by a detachment of 4 bombers. My only answer with this would be, perhaps now there's a reason to have less eggs in one basket. Also, all of the new units in the great slaughter offer no point incentive for larger sizes so the activation economy can still sorta be all over depending.