PDA

View Full Version : Scenario input needed



Latro
19-10-2008, 09:19
I'm looking for scenario's we can use in our local tournaments to spice things up a bit ... a change from the same old pitched battle again and again. Any ideas are welcome, but I'm most interested in scenario's that already have been tried and tested in other tournaments.


:cool:

Avian
19-10-2008, 10:05
The ones I use in the tournies I run can be found here: Running a Tournament (http://folk.ntnu.no/tarjeia/avian/gaming/running_tournies.php)

Leogun_91
19-10-2008, 10:17
There are some good options in the 6th edition rulebook and most work just as well in 7th edition, also really simple ones like last stand can help out (found in the big 7th edition rulebook)

Latro
19-10-2008, 13:24
@Avian: Thanks! Exactly what I'm looking for!

@Leogun_91: There are a lot of nice scenario's, but they have to be balanced enough for tournament play (not really screw some armies etc).


I'm also looking for some details on that scenario using messengers:

- was it fun/interesting to play
- stats/rules for the messengers
- VP specifics


:cool:

Latro
20-10-2008, 08:14
*pushes the bump button*

I'm working for a good cause here!


;)

Avian
20-10-2008, 08:25
If you ask me, scenarios with messengers are usually a bit like playing a separate game of tick-tack-toe next to the actual battle, with the winner getting a few extra VPs. Sure, it's an extra little challenge, but it doesn't really have anything to do with Warhammer. I don't think they are interesting and I don't have that type of scenario in my tournies.

Gorbad Ironclaw
20-10-2008, 08:36
I have to agree with Avian. I've played a few messenger games and unless you make it all about the messengers it just this weird little add-on. Your opponent can block them or kill them when they don't have anything better to do and they just end up not really feeling like part of the proper game. I think it you made it all about the messengers it could be interesting, but then that depends on how important you want the scenario objective to be.

Famder
20-10-2008, 10:48
What is a messanger scenario? I probably know what it is, but just don't realize it. So I'll ask the question and feel like an idiot.

Latro
20-10-2008, 16:53
From what I know it's a scenario where each side has three messengers (represented by seperate models with their own set of stats) who can earn extra VP's for you by exiting the board on the other side ... perhaps you can score as well by killing enemy messengers, not sure.

But they don't seem to be a big hit.


:cool:

The Brusier
20-10-2008, 23:26
Most tourney's I've been to have not had scenarios, execpt for 1...
If you don't pull it off, it can ruin the event. But if you realy want something to 'spice up' the pitched battle, use 'special features'.In the big red book, it has a section on special features, such as Historical Landmarks, etc. which would add something different to a pitched battle, but not change it too much.

Good luck with it though :)

Anvilbrow
21-10-2008, 00:55
I have a folder of ten scenarios I am currently using for the Warhammer league at my FLGS. I'd be happy to send them to you. If you are interested, PM me.

They include messenger, challenge, banners, deployment, magic, monsters, weather, flanks, marching order, and objective based scenarios. Many are loosely (some not so loosely) based on GT scenarios of the past decade.

Duke Georgal
21-10-2008, 02:44
I like scenarios that alter the rules slightly alter the strategy of the game.

Maybe miscasts become more likely. All units are subject to an extra test each turn. Things like that.

I hate scenarios that really are anti-specific-armies. I played in one tournament where the last round was a rain scenario. All black powder war machines needed to roll a 4+ to fire. I was playing Bretonnia, and the Empire I faced had to roll 4+ TWICE to fire a war machine! That was so unfair to him and my victory felt meaningless.

Latro
21-10-2008, 06:21
I hate scenarios that really are anti-specific-armies. I played in one tournament where the last round was a rain scenario. All black powder war machines needed to roll a 4+ to fire. I was playing Bretonnia, and the Empire I faced had to roll 4+ TWICE to fire a war machine! That was so unfair to him and my victory felt meaningless.

That's exactly the thing we want to avoid at all cost. A good scenario changes the tactics, not the balance. Anyway, thanks for the help so far!


:cool:

Famder
21-10-2008, 07:42
I hate scenarios that really are anti-specific-armies. I played in one tournament where the last round was a rain scenario. All black powder war machines needed to roll a 4+ to fire. I was playing Bretonnia, and the Empire I faced had to roll 4+ TWICE to fire a war machine! That was so unfair to him and my victory felt meaningless.
A good way to balance this is add in elements of rain that affect the other armies that don't have black powder. Like all infantry have M-1 due to mud (except dwarves who can handle it), and all cav with an armor save of 4+ or better is at M-2, while fliers can only charge 15" rather than 20". And all non-black powder shooting is at -1 to hit due to poor visibility. This makes the rain screw pretty much everybody. Probably still isn't a great idea though, and would get a little complicated.

Gorbad Ironclaw
21-10-2008, 07:59
A good way to balance this is add in elements of rain that affect the other armies that don't have black powder.

I don't agree. Nerf scenarios are not fun. Doesn't matter if they hit every army in same way, they are not fun. They don't add new options to the game, they don't make you able to win in a different way, they just make your army worse.

Other scenarios can make you rethink your army composition, but that's because you will need to fulfil some objective or another, not because of a straight out nerf. I know that have been commonly used as scenarios, but I don't think they are a good idea.

Avian
21-10-2008, 09:38
Yep, I agree with Gorbad. Stuff like that tends to be change just for the heck of it. It's also worth noting that these special rules are nearly always affecting units in a negative way, so if you have one scenario that punishes shooting, another that punishes cavalry and a third that punishes magic, an army that is geared up to be super-shooty only takes a hit in one, whereas a balanced army takes a hit in each and every game.

So if you bring a balanced army and are unlucky, you might face a super-cavalry in the game that punishes shooting, a super-magic army in the game that punishes cavalry and a super-shooty army in the game that punishes magic. You brought the balanced list and yet you were the one that suffered more than your opponent in each of your games.
Not much fun, I'd think.

Famder
21-10-2008, 18:32
Apparently no one read the last sentence.