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.

I have gotten a chance to play a few games of Apocalypse under the new rule set and I must say I am liking how they treat objectives. Instead of just end game maneuvering, the objectives are worth points at the end of every 2 turns. They are also go up in points as the game goes on. So end of turn 2 each objective is worth 1pt. End of turn 4 each objective is worth 2pts. Since turns 5-7 are variable you would have the turn the game ends on have the objectives be worth 3pts.

Would this be a good way to run objective missions in tournaments? I think it would be brilliant way to encourage playing the whole game instead of just playing for turn 4 to be in position for your end game runs. It would also leave the possibility for Jetbikes to control/contest at the last moment but it also allows for the opponent that has been claiming the objectives the entire game to be reflected in the final outcome.

I'm getting ready to write up some missions for my local stores next tournament and I was wondering if anyone has tried this method before. Does it work? What down sides is there that I'm not seeing?

Aside from the extra book keeping this involves I do like it. But it opens up the door for "oh well I think you wrote down the wrong points in turn three and the models arnt in the same positions now so how can we know what actually happen" douchebaggery

Warmachine uses scenarios like this- Basically, at the end of the 2nd players 2nd turn, you can start earning points at the end of each players turn. I've never seen any problems with how this works.

It would, of course, favor faster armies and those who can put a tanky unit on the objective. So be prepared for complaints from gunline players.

I like the way apocalypse scores throughout the game, but they also use different rules for 'controlling' the objective. The closest unit, regardless of how great the distance is, controls the obj. I prefer the normal 40k rules of 3" and will probably use them next time I play apocalypse.

 MikeFox wrote:
Aside from the extra book keeping this involves I do like it. But it opens up the door for "oh well I think you wrote down the wrong points in turn three and the models arnt in the same positions now so how can we know what actually happen" douchebaggery

I hadn't thought about the score keeping. I suppose I could include 6 little boxes on the score card for Yours and Your Opponents scores on turn 2,4, Last Turn. I think that would go along way to fixing that type of problem. Heck you could even give out an award called Land Rush for who ever had the most amount of objectives throughout the tournament at the end of turn 2 since you have the data.

It would, of course, favor faster armies and those who can put a tanky unit on the objective. So be prepared for complaints from gunline players.

Is it really that much of a burden on a gun line player? Most of the time there is a minimum of 3 objectives if not more, they would have the chance to secure others let alone the one or two they might have in or around their deployment zone. I think you would see a shift in how people play the game and perhaps take a more durable unit for mid game/end game mid field objectives instead of just a 3 man bike squad to really only do something on turn 5. There would still be a valid use for those bike squads at the end of the game and this scoring system doesn't take away from their purpose.

I guess my big gripe against the current scoring is that it only shows what happened on the very last turn of the game and doesn't reflect that someone held Objectives A,B,C the entire game but had all 3 contested on their opponents last turn.

A few things here

1.) I feel the turn 2 scores are likely less real ent than later scores anyway.

2.) it really favors the player going second especially if they have fast moving scoring/ denial units.

3.) I do like that it somewhat discourages guy line armies.

4.) hurts mech armies if they have weaker units in vehicles.

5.)Large benefit to MSU

Breng77 wrote:A few things here

1.) I feel the turn 2 scores are likely less real ent than later scores anyway.

Why do you feel this? I could think of a number of reasons that actually holding the objective (Upload/download data,

Breng77 wrote:
2.) it really favors the player going second especially if they have fast moving scoring/ denial units.

Not necessarily any more than having a single scoring event at the end of the game. The first player will still get the alpha strike, and will have the first chance to claim objectives. They will then have to hold the objectives through their opponents turn (exactly like the last round in normal missions). Player one then gets a turn to attack, and if they remove player twos unit from the objective, will score at the end of their turn before having to hold the objective during their opponents turn, repeated throughout the game. Compare this to a normal game, where Player one claims the objectives first at the end of the game, and then player two gets to try to knock them off. If the game ends at the end of that turn, player two still gets the last move, but without player one having an active turn in which to score points.

Breng77 wrote:
3.) I do like that it somewhat discourages guy line armies.

I quite agree. Even if it does not encourage more melee, it will at least encourage maneuvering.

Breng77 wrote:
4.) hurts mech armies if they have weaker units in vehicles.

Not necessarily. Mech units are faster, so could more readily take objectives, and you would also need to kill the tank before you could claim the objective, so it kinda evens out.

Breng77 wrote:
5.)Large benefit to MSU

Not necessarily. Small units are easier to kill, meaning during a players active turn it is easy to remove their opponents objective holders. I'd actually think that it would favor the ability to field beefy, tanky troop choices, which could get on the objective and stay there. Small, fast units would remain useful for their ability to grab objectives without devoting much material, but wouldn't be able to hold them through their opponents turn that well.

1.) should read relevant. If I am on 2 objectives and so are you both of us scoring does not effect the outcome of the game.

2.) if we score at the end of game turn 2 and I have fast scoring or denial (think eldar jet bikes) I can, going second, contest your objectives turn 2. While scoring mine...if we each had 2 and I contest yours I am up 2-0. If i do the same turn 4 I am then up 6-0. It can make it such that I can easily win the game without needing to do much at the end.

3.). I encourages some mobility I agree, so long as we don't each star with 2 objectives. Actually with player placed objectives thinking about it if I place 3 on my side I can easily sit and play gun line.

4.) tanks don't score or contest, no need to kill them to claim, and units must disembark meaning they get exposed to fire they otherwise would not.

5.) if scored like apoc I don't need to hold them through your turn if I go second. So small units that can hold then die and be replaced benefit.

If you score only on your opponents turn it is a bit better but still really favors fast armies.

I wasn't aware that live scoring is a part of apocalypse! I've been mulling over a set of missions that would include this type of mechanic, but I had imagined scoring would be accrued at the beginning of a players next turn. In this way, players have equal opportunity to impact one another's scoring in the turn sequence.

Breng77 wrote:
1.) should read relevant. If I am on 2 objectives and so are you both of us scoring does not effect the outcome of the game.

2.) if we score at the end of game turn 2 and I have fast scoring or denial (think eldar jet bikes) I can, going second, contest your objectives turn 2. While scoring mine...if we each had 2 and I contest yours I am up 2-0. If i do the same turn 4 I am then up 6-0. It can make it such that I can easily win the game without needing to do much at the end.

There is very little chance of this playing out the way you say. If any little fast moving scoring/denial unit tries to contest on turn 2. (I'm thinking Eldar Jetbikes here). There is no chance that's unit will survive the top of turn 3 and the retaliation. Nice trick for one turn, but when the objectives are worth more points later in the game, those little fast moving scoring/denial units will be gone.

Breng77 wrote:
1.) should read relevant. If I am on 2 objectives and so are you both of us scoring does not effect the outcome of the game.

2.) if we score at the end of game turn 2 and I have fast scoring or denial (think eldar jet bikes) I can, going second, contest your objectives turn 2. While scoring mine...if we each had 2 and I contest yours I am up 2-0. If i do the same turn 4 I am then up 6-0. It can make it such that I can easily win the game without needing to do much at the end.

3.). I encourages some mobility I agree, so long as we don't each star with 2 objectives. Actually with player placed objectives thinking about it if I place 3 on my side I can easily sit and play gun line.

4.) tanks don't score or contest, no need to kill them to claim, and units must disembark meaning they get exposed to fire they otherwise would not.

5.) if scored like apoc I don't need to hold them through your turn if I go second. So small units that can hold then die and be replaced benefit.

If you score only on your opponents turn it is a bit better but still really favors fast armies.

Okay, I see where you are coming from. I am basing my arguments on a system like Warmachines Steamroller, where:

1) All objectives are in the no-mans land (so no camping in your deployment zone to win).
2) Points are scored at the end of each player turn, so you have to control or contest the objectives during their turn in order to win.

In these circumstances, the "take and hold" mentality that I mentioned becomes important.

I personally would like that, it would stop a lot of the "reserve my troops so I can protect them." The troops should be the base of your army, you shouldn't have 3-4 elites/heavies maxed then min squad sized troops. All support and no core means that they shouldn't be able to take and hold.

Oh look, my reserved jetbikes came on and got the objective on the last turn because I went second, so I win. That is just lame way to squeak out a win in my opinion. A valid way, but lame.

Even if objectives are placed in one players deployment zone, the enemy could focus fire to clear an objective or send a fast attack squad to contest,etc. By scoring every 2 rounds it changes the game from being a two turn (Four and Five) game. It gives players more options. Do I send a unit to tie up one of his objectives in the first few turns or do I hold them back for the end game? By not forcing/taking an objective from the enemy early on you could cost yourself the game.

I'll be looking to try this scoring system out in probably mid-January. I'll be very interested to hear player feed back going into the event and then afterwards

I like the idea of, every turn, an objective is worth the points for that turn number. So yes, this gives an advantage to holding an objective all game, but it also makes the last turn the most important still.

DarthDiggler wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
1.) should read relevant. If I am on 2 objectives and so are you both of us scoring does not effect the outcome of the game.

2.) if we score at the end of game turn 2 and I have fast scoring or denial (think eldar jet bikes) I can, going second, contest your objectives turn 2. While scoring mine...if we each had 2 and I contest yours I am up 2-0. If i do the same turn 4 I am then up 6-0. It can make it such that I can easily win the game without needing to do much at the end.

There is very little chance of this playing out the way you say. If any little fast moving scoring/denial unit tries to contest on turn 2. (I'm thinking Eldar Jetbikes here). There is no chance that's unit will survive the top of turn 3 and the retaliation. Nice trick for one turn, but when the objectives are worth more points later in the game, those little fast moving scoring/denial units will be gone.

Seeing as I have done just this there is a very good chance of it happening. If I have 6 eldar jet bike units and sacrifice 2 to contest turn 2 and 2 to contest turn 4 it does not matter if they live.

As to troops being the core of the army that idea clearly favors armies with good troops.

The score every turn thing is ok but so long as I can contest for a turn I still gain an advantage.

Overall it is not bad, but I think you will find that if objectives are still worth a lot at the end, last turn grab will often still win the day.

Hmmmmmm....