Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

the_ferrett wrote:If you'll have me, I'll play Orks

Oh, we'll have you alright. Welcome aboard! Which Orks are you?

Orkeosaurus wrote:I will play as the illustrious space marine chapter of The Rainbow Warriors.

Good call! I wondered who would nab them given that John is seemingly not keen on the Space Marines and Kid_Kyoto has not deigned to get in on the fun here yet.

Well after looking over the first game this looks good, if there's still time to join then count me in.

I'll be Craftworld Yme-Loc, Eldar. Because all Eldar want to be like them since 5th ed came out

Bad Moonz

I would be interested in playing again - I'll be Bloodaxe Orks.

When would people like to begin Game Two?

Manchu wrote:When would people like to begin Game Two?

It seems to me that Game Two changes are based mostly on "early game" feedback, with only a few Start 10 / R1 armies gone.

I'd almost like to see how Game One progresses to at least half armies down before launching Game Two.

I'm with John here. We're barely at the midgame arena, and we should wait to see if any more changes need to be made before doing this again.

Also, the people request...nay! The people demand that sisters be released!

Watched the beginning of the first game with some interest. Might like to get involved, but I know I can't play 2 games on here at the same time, so would have to be after the current Mafia game ends. So put me down as a maybe, if you're still looking for people.

Very cool game so far.

I'm not sure that I am happy with either the pace or the progression of Game One. First, things are going achingly slowly. Second, the only strategy seems to be reinforce + dogpile. (Maybe there's a whole master plan at work in the PMs that I am not seeing?) Don't get me wrong, different factions are playing differently: Orks have been hopping around reinforcing and are just now entering the fight whereas Chaos and Eldar have been much more proactive, for example. FITZZ suggested that he'd like to see the addition or objectives to encourage more teamsmanship. I also like the idea of overt alliances. I was thinking of putting together a victory point system and letting four or less players band together in declared alliances to share their individually-earned points. You could earn one point for contolling a world the longest (being the person to have stayed on a world the longest after moving there) and two points for killing off another player. I think this would make for faster games inasmuch teams could win more quickly than individuals. Thoughts?

@Manchu: I'm OK with it, but not to the extent that I'd play Eldar again.

1. It is slow, an unforeseen artifact of the rules.

2. The massed reinforce is a function of most armies having a higher max than their starting health, along with broad access to high reinforce rewards. Dogpile is more a side effect of personalities and vendetta, along with the ability for any army to shrug small damage by easy Reinforce.

Orks hop&reinforce is a function of reinforce being easy, and reinforce tied to move.

Eldar & SM both had to be proactive, with nothing to gain by sitting & reinforcing.

VPs for staying put rewards inertia, esp by IG & Nids. I wouldn't...

Victory Points for kills would be nice, but are hard to score.

Team wins would be nice, but there should be some kind of synergy in the rules. For example:

+1A or +1T for each of same army in location.

So you put 4 IG in a location, and they're a real terror...

I would support either weakening all races ability to Reinforce, or perhaps remove it altogether for most, and have all races starting at their Max.

This would ensure games won't go on for ever, like this one seems to be doing.

Maybe something like they can only reinforce every three days or something?

Basically, we need to make it easier and quicker for armies to die.

Emperors Faithful wrote:Basically, we need to make it easier and quicker for armies to die.

That is what I said ages ago. The attacks characteristic has been raised for that reason.

I doubt it will be enough, as that will simply encourage less stand up fights and more running away to recover. By increasing the attacks and lowering the ability to recover from them, it forces the players to kill each other, and quickly.

Also, I think everyone should start at thier max, so that "camping" players who reinforce until confident enough are avoided.

Or the fast players could avoid ganging up on one another to kill the slow hordes?

I think the game 2 is ok as is. I am happy to play in its current state.

If I were going to change anything I would change the game so that doing nothing hurt you. Would stop this hiding and doing nothing players from being in the strongest position at the mid point.

@Manchu you can't expect people to act logically.

Manchu wrote:Or the fast players could avoid ganging up on one another to kill the slow hordes?

So give us some motivation to attack the hordes.

Could live with objectives, missions, setups of 1horde vs everyone else, drop reinforcing completly, more attacks/less wounds,
boni, whatever, just get it back moving as its now slow like a zombie horde...

How should the hard hitting fast armies balance the horde again?

Survivor does run its course if its all about reducing every other entry to 0 like a "royal rumble".


If every one is meant to die faster, the fast armies could slow down. But they need the resilience to stay in the fight, or its turns to a
hit and run game.

So:

1) start at max and no more reinforce on your own (except nids, maybe).
2) to reinforce, a player has to spend one of his own "wounds" to backup another player in the same location.
Restrict it to once per day/ player. This allows to transfer wounds, but weakens the allys as the sum of wounds doesn't change.
Maybe a compatible source would be acceptable, like IG supporting IG., and not orks filling the ranks of IG....
3) maybe lower the max wounds to 15 ( horde ) 20 ( nids ) to have them feel the pain of hard hitting opponents?
4) restrict some armies to 4 or less. 5 IG could pound 3x 10w armies in 2 turns to dust, not impossible if they post after the w10
and before them in the next turn. OTOh, impenetrable fortress.....may I go find a few IG players
But we want it more killy, so scrap that.
5) maybe extras or missions/objectives to spice up the game? Extras should work like they did in old shoot em ups,
use them once, but maybe no way to get new ones. A simple add on to the line could show them:
insert name of army, insert type, insert extras counter, insert wounds. => Blood Ravens (SM) (5) 10








------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thought about possible changes and, as its getting a bit dry, lengthy and may not be the perfect solution.

Its a bit pointless to attack a horde that recovers from the hits and your fast army can't recover the damage from the retaliation.
As both armies act in a turn, A3 vs R3 is a zero sum game, but will become worse if the hordes gather and A3 vs R3/A1 or
A3 vs A 1+1 is played. Hordes get 2 boni: R and wounds.

Example 2x A3 vs 2x A1/1 R3

At max its =>

A3/10w + A3/10w vs A1+1/20w + A1+1/20w.

6xA vs 20w = 14w , R3 = 17w , A 1+1 = 9/9w
6xA vs 17w = 11w , R3 = 14w , A 1+1 = 8/8w
6xA vs 14w = 8w , R3 = 11w , A 1+1 = 7/7w
6xA vs 11w = 5w , R3 = 8w , A 1+1 = 6/6w
6xA vs 8w = 2w , R3 = 5w , A 1+1 = 5/5w ( or if the 2w player accepts his doom => A 2 +2 = 4/4w.)
6xA vs 5w = 0w , A1+1 = 4/4 ( 3xA vs 2w = 0w, 3xA vs 20w = 17w , A 1+1 = 3/3w)
6xA vs 20w = 17w , A 1+1 = 3/3w (6xA vs 17w = 14, A 1+1 = 2/2)
6xA vs 17w = 14w , A 1+1 = 2/2w (6xA vs 14w = 8, A 1+1 = 1/1w)
6xA vs 14w = 8w , A 1+1 = 1/1w ( R1, R1 = 2/2w , A 1+1 = 1/1w ), ( A 1/1 vs 1/1w = 0/0w , next turn R3 = 11w)
6xA vs 8w = 2w, A 1+1 = 0/0w. Next turn R3 = 5w. ( 3xA vs 8w = 5w ,R1 = 1/2w , A 1+1 = 0/1w.)
3xA vs 5w = 2w, A 1 = 0w. ( 3xA vs 5w = 2w , R3 = 5w. )
( both fast armies and one horde is down = 20 wounds lost on fast, horde has 5-11 wounds left = 20/40 => 0/5-11. )
the outcome is clear. 2vs 2 works in favor of hordes.If the w10 run and reinforce, the horde will recover faster.
If the fast focus on 1vs1, the horde can just regenerate all day = A3 vs R3 = 0.If they focus on 2vs1, they may drag down 1 horde but will die both in that process as they are easy prey at low wounds and cannot kill both hordes.
IMO, 3 vs 2 or 2 vs 1 is the way to go then. But then you get the issue of planning a combined attack.

Without reinforcing the first example goes:

6xA vs 20w = 14w , A 2/2 = 8/8 w.
6xA vs 14w = 8w, A 2/2 = 6/6w.
6xA vs 8w = 2w, A 2/2 = 4/4w.
3xA vs 2w = 0w, 3xA vs 20w = 17w, A 1/1 = 3/3w.
6xA vs 17w = 11w, A 1/1 = 2/2w.
6xA vs 11w = 5w, A 1/1 = 1/1w.
(depends who acts first next turn)
6xA vs 5w = 0w. ( A 1/1 vs 1/1w = 0/0w.)
so either both hordes die or both fast die. Fast still become easy prey at 1/1.

or
(2x)3xA vs 20w = 17/17w, (2x) A1+1 vs 10/10w = 8/8w.
(2x)3xA vs 17w = 14/14w, (2x)A1+1 vs 8/8w = 6/6w.
(2x) 3xA vs 14w = 11/11w, (2x) A1+1 vs 6/6w = 4/4w.
(2x) 3xA vs 11w = 8/8w, (2x) A 1+1 vs 4/4w = 2/2w.
(2x) 3xA vs 8w = 5/5w, (2x) A 1+1 vs 2/2w = 0/0w.
(both horde survive, both fast are down.)
reduces horde to a smaller threat of 5w, but still fast doesn't survive


Maybe 4 vs 4 then?

4x3A vs 20w = 8w, 4x 1+1+1 A vs 10wx4 = 10/6/6/6 w.
3x3A vs 8w = 0, 3xA vs 20w = 17w. 3x 1+1+1A vs 6wx4 = 10/3/3/3w.
4x3A vs 17w = 5w, 3x 1+1+1 A vs 6/3/3/3w = 10/0/0/0w. ( 3 x 1+1+1 A vs 6/3/3/3w = 3/0/0/3w )
3xA vs 5w = 2w, 3x1A vs 10w = 7w. ( 3x 1+1 A vs 3/3w = 0/0w)
3xA vs 2w = 0w, 2x1A vs 7w = 5w.
3xA vs 20w = 17w , 2x1A vs 5w = 3w
3xA vs 17w = 14w , 2x1A vs 3w = 1w
3xA vs 14w = 11w , 2x1A vs 1w = 0w
(4 fast down, 2 horde down)
Maybe the horde post first?
4x3A vs 20w = 8w, 4x 1+1+1 A vs 10wx4 = 8/8/6/6 w. (opening)
4x 1+1 A vs 8/8/6/6w = 6/6/2/2w, 3x3 A vs 8w = 0w, 3xA vs 20w = 17w.
3x 1+1+1 A vs 6/6/2/2w = 5/3/0/0w, 2x3A vs 17w = 11w.
3x 1+1A vs 5/3w = 2/0W, 3xA vs 11w = 8w.
3x 1 A vs 2w = 0w.
(4 fast down, 1 horde down)
horde wins because 4x20w and spreading fire are better than 4x10w and focusing fire.

So fast decides to go 1vs1:
3xA vs 20w = 17w ( 17/17/17/17), but horde shouldn't do this and sticks with 4x 1+1+1 A = 8/8/6/6w
3xA vs 17w = 14w ( 14/14/14/14) again 4x 1+1+1 A = 4/4/4/4w.
3xA vs 14w = 11w (11/11/11/11), again 4x 1+1+1A = 1/1/1/1w
3xA vs 11w = 8w ( 8/8/8/8), now 1+1+1 A = 0/0/0/1w, 1xA = 0w.
(4 horde survive badly mauled but all fast are down)
neither focusing or spreading attention hands victory to fast, horde win again.

IMO, this becomes worse with greater hordes. Twice the wounds plus dishing out barrages.....


Example after changes:

2 vs 2:

(2x) 3xA vs 20w = 14w, (2x) 1+1 A vs 10/10w = 8/8w
(2x) 3xA vs 14w = 11w, (2x) 1+1A vs 8/8w = 6/6w.
(2x) 3xA vs 11w = 5w, (2x) 1+1A vs 6/6w = 4/4w.
( 2x) 3xA vs 5w = 0w, 1+1A vs 4/4w = 3/3w.
Fast leaves battle, swaps forces. ( 1x 6w instead of 2x3w).
Return to fight:
3xA vs 20w = 17w, 1A vs 6w = 5w.
3xA vs 17w = 14w, 1A vs 5w = 4w.
3xA vs 14w = 11w, 1A vs 4w = 3w.
3xA vs 11w = 8w, 1A vs 3w = 2w.
3xA vs 8w = 5w, 1A vs 2w = 1w.
3xA vs 5w = 2w, 1A vs 1w = 0w.
both fasts down, but 1 horde just barely alive at 2w...

Reduced max wounds:

(2x) 3A vs 15w = 9w, (2x) 1+1A vs 10/10w = 8/8w
(2x) 3A vs 9w = 3w, (2x) 1+1A vs 8/8w = 6/6w
3A vs 3w = 0w, 3xA vs 15w = 12w, 1+1A vs 6/6w = 5/5w
(2x) 3xA vs 12w = 6w, 1+1A vs 5/5w = 4/4w
(2x) 3xA vs 6w = 0w.
or
3xA vs 15w = 12w, (2x) 1A vs 10w = 8w
3xA vs 12w = 9w, (2x) 1A vs 8w = 6w
3xA vs 9w = 6w, (2x) 1A vs 6w = 4w
3xA vs 6w = 3w, (2x) 1A vs 4w = 2w (1A vs 4w = 2w ,reinforce 1 => 15-1= 3w +1=4w)
3xA vs 3w = 0w, 1A vs 2w = 1w (3xA vs 4w = 1w, (2x)1A vs 2w = 0w)
fast wins a 2vs2, but is low at 50% strength or dies in a 1vs2 but drags one down with.

IMO, preferrable when hordes need to gather to survive.

Assumed we want to keep the difference of A/M or M/A or M or A ,
-hordes should be slow and attack where they stand (A) or move (M).
IG needs its time to setup a proper formation, A or M. Nids may not hop from world to world but try to consume one wholly, A or M.
. Orks could A+M, but benefit from staying in one theatre of war.
-fast should be able to move and attack (M/A) and attack (A) and move (M) or attack and move (A/M).
SM may stand and fight or move and fight. Eldar may choose to A+M or M+A, a bit hit and run.
CSM could A+M or M+A, maybe if they stay 2 turns and fight their demonic allies chime in (NPC 5w / A 1+1, may not move).
-reeinforce maybe as gaining power form eaten opponents ( nids in a fight ) or gathering a waagh ( multiple orks maybe 2 turns fighting at 1 world ). Anyone else may share wounds with his faction members. ( 1 per turn/recipient).
-statlines:
SM A3 M2 10w
CSM A2 M2 10w
IG A 1/1/1 M1 15w
Eldar A1(2) M* 10w
Orks A1/1 M1 15w
Nids A 2 or 1/1 M1 10w/max 20w

-specials
nids may omnom to recover wounds = 1/2 per turn.
orks gather a waagh if they stay and fight 2 turns. >Each ork army may recover 1 wound at the end of the second turn in the same location, fighting obviously, as lazy gitz that doesn't fight isn't proper ork
eldar may choose to A and M or M and A, using their webway their free to go wherever they please. May focus at a mission and
get a second attack, but loose the option to use the webway then and becomes M2.
csm may stay in a fight for 2 turns and call their demonic allies. NPC/ A 1/1 M 0 5w, may never recover wounds.
IG may dig in, if left unassailed for 2 turns the IG may choose to reduce max damage per opponent to 2.
SM, can't run away like eldar and can't use "allies" like CSM. Their low numbers making them small targets and combined with the
inbreed resilience, SM never suffer more than a single wound from 1 opponent.(reduce A2 to A1).


Please do not take offense if thats not to your taste.

Disclaimer: this isn't run through any math software so I may have it wrong.

Wow. That was just a bunch of numbers to me. Like staring into the Matrix...or the Warp with digits.

I agree with Emperor's Faithful...

--------------------------------------

I don't see how we can implement objectives?

Three days to reinforce + if you are on an objective by the end of a phase, you get a reinforcement of 3~5?

Or perhaps the objective is to wound a random player?

Gah, hold an artifact that you can steal in lieu of dealing damage?

@1had: good analysis, and confirming that R is to high and too easy. Also confirms that A1 is pretty much useless.

@IS: objectives that require day to day tracking are no good. Static / faction bonuses / penalties by site would be nice:

E.g. Eye of Terror - Eldar may not Reinforce here.

Hang on, perhaps the Game Maker could set each player an objective? Such as outlasting a particular players.

So Manchu would Send a PM to player.

Objective: To outlast the Goffs.

or

Objective: To make the killing blow on the Vostroyans.


This would affect the overall goal of the game, but it would make things fun for those even if they lose. It gives them a "well I'm dead meat, but I can drag my objective down with me!"

I like EF's idea but that keeps the host in the referee role and I had hoped that the game would be entirely self-modded. Anyway, I'd be more than happy if someone would like to overhaul the existing faction concepts to work with 1hadhq's findings.

Well, it doesn't really, you give everyone an objective (try to make sure no one get's named twice or given the same goal), and then you enter the game as well. I suppose you could set yourself a personal goal, but these secondary objectives don't really need to be modded, and as a bonus it will also encourage people to get stuck right in with thier foes (making pacts with others to help) rather than avoid and reinforce.

Ok, we have a primary objective......which is...?
Lets say, the central world is the only place to contact the rest of the galaxy and to bring in the reserves.
Sort of a webway/jumppoint/warpgate/.... and therefore the only place to reinforce.
Secondly, a line is used, about 7 worlds with the centre (primary objective/re-enforce point).
If everyone starts at max, there is no reason to camp. Plus, we could install a "son/daughter I am dissapoint" rule.
Where the liege (emperor, gork&mork, khaine,hive mind) of every faction kicks his followers if they stay inactive.
You know, the audience demands entertainment...
How to implement?
Make attacks mandatory outside the centre. If not dishing out, you receive a reminder from your patron...maybe - 1 wound.
So we have a "eye of the storm" in the middle where one may reinforce and focusing on that cannot attack ( but can attack if s/he
doesn't reinforce), a playfield to fight upon to reduce the contenders to claim the centre.
Now I hear you ask why anyone should leave the centre?
Maybe because everyone there could attack you? Maybe the secondary objectives?

And I would welcome our (former referee) to the field of battle.
Don't need personal objectives. Maybe general secondary objectives. Like boni to grab at the outer worlds.....maybe an attack multiplier ?

Would also upgrade the statline to A = 2 and M = 2 as regular, but min wounds then 15.

To be honest, there are too many rules there. I'm against "In-Game" objectives, and more in favour of "End-Game" objectives.

Emperors Faithful wrote:To be honest, there are too many rules there. I'm against "In-Game" objectives, and more in favour of "End-Game" objectives.

Too many rules?
Its just a Map. Dunno, did expect wargamers beeing used to terrain effects...

So how do these "end game objectives" work?

Why is the whole Mission generating work handed to Manchu Wasn't the request less work to free him to join?

But if a additional motivation is neccessary, we could form teams and aim for a team win. Nothing preset like factions,
more a 'secret' line up of teams ( at 15 players = 5 X 3 teams ), declared in PM from OP before the game starts.
Drawback: one may not like his teammates...

Plus, I really want to know if there is interest to speed the game up.

Apparently I'm back and alive and wasn't eaten by Canadian wildebeests.

That also means now I'm back in time to perhaps try this sucker out - sign me up skipper.

I'll probably be obligated to pick DE out of a sense of loyalty to the army, plus if I pick like that I don't need to work too hard trying to wrap my head around which army is the most powerful (numberwise it's certainly not DE, so I figure the mobility will pay off. Speed kills.)

In my opinion, we Ork players have had to play negatively in order to survive - for example IG can attack 3 AND reinforce 1. That's substantially more powerful than Orks.
The only way I could see to survive was to carry out the odd hit-and-run, whilst reinforcing whenever I could. It's worked so far, to be fair.

I mean, it doesn't necessarily make for a more fun game, but then, I'm not going to make a bunch of bad tactical decisions just to make it more fun for everyone!

@Thor: Would you once-over these rules and Game One. Everyone is trying to figure out what might make things smoother before beginning Game Two.

@Albatross: I think you're right about G1 Orks. Take a look at how I spiffed them up for G2.