PDA

View Full Version : Does anyone not play victory points anymore?



fastcarfreak
30-01-2009, 18:49
I have been reading on these boards for a long time now. My group and I have always played total victory (meaning destroying opponents entire army or close to it) when we play warhammer. Back when we first started playing, it seemed that this was the way to go (and also the way we were taught). Now it seems that everyone but my group plays strictly victory points. I was hoping to spark a discussion amongst people who play both ways (if any of you are left). What are your thoughts?

My thoughts: I find that playing total victory adds more excitement to the game. Being that I play mostly multiplayer battles (2v2), this has always been the quickest and most fun way of doing it. As a matter of fact, I dont think I can remember a single game where it actually lasted 6 rounds before it was blatently obvious who was the victor. We usually just play until one side consedes the game. Even when we get to those battles where it seems that it may be super close, they still dont last 6 rounds. Please add your experiences.

Tarian
30-01-2009, 19:03
I always play VP. We usually round when one side has a clear advantage, but sometimes that extra 100 from killing the enemy general etc. can definitely change the result from a draw to a minor etc.

Cry of the Wind
30-01-2009, 19:07
I've always played standard 6 round with normal victory points. Some games can be very one sided early on but normally the full 6 turns is needed to find a solid winner if it isn't still a draw then. Playing for total destruction of enemy forces wouldn't really be that fun IMHO since one player is probably going to get beat on for a turn or two with nothing they can do about it, almost like the end game scenario for most games of Risk I've played. Standard victory points allow for a small victory to be snatched from the jaws of defeat.

wingedserpant
30-01-2009, 19:09
I frequently play games with people the same skill level as myself. Alot of the time we need to work out victory points to see who has won as its impossible to see from looking at the board.

Total victory gets rid of useful tatics like capturing table quarters and capturing standards.

fastcarfreak
30-01-2009, 19:16
I guess i have just never played with anyone of my skill level. We usually have the same 4 people (2v2) play on sundays, and it just always seems that our side completely destroys the opponent. Im just not sure how including victory points into our game will change the results in the least bit. Ive brought up the idea of playing victory points with my friends, but they never seem to want to. They are perfectly content playing total victory.

wingedserpant
30-01-2009, 19:18
I guess i have just never played with anyone of my skill level. We usually have the same 4 people (2v2) play on sundays, and it just always seems that our side completely destroys the opponent. Im just not sure how including victory points into our game will change the results in the least bit. Ive brought up the idea of playing victory points with my friends, but they never seem to want to. They are perfectly content playing total victory.

Why not swap players about? Your gaming group sounds very boring by the way. You play the same type of game every time. I'd grow weary of that.

isidril93
30-01-2009, 19:18
i love playing with VP...the suspense until the total is figured out...

Tarian
30-01-2009, 19:18
Well, VP change things due to capturing banners, table quarters, killing generals, taking objectives etc. An army laden with banners on throwaways can give a LOT of points up. (If someone MSU's w/ banners in each unit, for example, they could definitely change a loss to a tie with all the 100s of points from the banners.)

fastcarfreak
30-01-2009, 19:26
Why not swap players about? Your gaming group sounds very boring by the way. You play the same type of game every time. I'd grow weary of that.

I wish we could find some new players to join our group, but it seems like the people around here that play the game are either non existant, or just really don't "fit in" socially with our group. Without having some kind of commonality between group members, it can really take away from the enjoyment of the game.

btw, we do randomize teams every game, and all of us have different armies we play, and also barely ever bring the same list of an army to a game, so there is a bunch of variety.

fastcarfreak
30-01-2009, 19:29
and yes, sometimes our group can be quite boring. for example, I have about 6000 points of skaven, and 5000 points of Orcs and Goblins that I never get to play as a full army. We always play 2500 points each, and the one time we upped it to 3500 points, i was the only one who wanted to do it again. I wonder if there are any people on the forum who are from the central NY area that are willing to play sometime!!!

Desert Rain
30-01-2009, 19:46
When I just had started playing we were always playing until one side was destroyed. Nowadays we play with VP and 6 turns or until the other side consedes. Playing until one side is annihlilated takes to much time most of the time.

O&G'sRule
30-01-2009, 19:48
The problem with not playing VP's is that the balance of the game sort of rests on it. Some armies are stronger than others once the numbers start to get low, so playing for 15 turns so that the opponent is wiped out might give you different results to if you stopped at 6 and added up the VP's

fastcarfreak
30-01-2009, 20:00
thats what Im saying though. Our games never last more than 6 rounds. The time required is no more than if playing victory points.

enyoss
30-01-2009, 20:49
I go to victory points in one of my gaming groups, but in the other it's usually done `by eye'. Most of time I believe that if you have to calculate victory points to decide the winner, it can't be that obvious so is probably close enough to call a draw.

Plus, quite often I find the victory point system encourages a style of play which, for me, isn't much fun. For example, players avoiding the much loved general on general showdown so they can fly off and claim a table quarter, meaning I just pass my final turn with nothing to do but reach for the calculator :(.

Cheers,

enyoss

Braad
30-01-2009, 21:00
The first few games I played with my back then only opponent (we started at the same time) were also 'total kill'. We just didn't read far enough into the book to come to that.

Point was, I had orcs: 1 block of warriors, a couple of arrer boyz and a big boss on boar and slowly adding bits.
He had lizardmen: 1 unit of saurus and a bunch of skinks and also slowly growing more.
After a few turns, when the close combat units had finished, either in his or my advantage, then he would just run around my boyz, shooting with his skinks. I could not catch them. Back then, skirmishing skinks didn't march, but 'double paced' so were not march blocked, and easily outmaneuvred my foot-sloggers. So, he just kept on doing until I was destroyed, even if he killed only one or two a turn. After six, seven turns of this, it gets boring.

That's a balance thing. While in the bigger games we play now, this specific situation doesn't really occur anymore, there are others. Some armies just get unfair advantages/disadvantages when you keep on going.

selone
30-01-2009, 21:19
We play 6 turns unless someone gives in and if needed to calculate VP's.

Volker the Mad Fiddler
30-01-2009, 21:43
The only time I don't play straight victory points, is when playing designed scenarios [which themselves often rely on a modified form of victory points]. I also tend to play lots of campaigns so scenarios are extremely common.

theunwantedbeing
30-01-2009, 22:08
In short, playing 6 turns for VP is more tactical, WAY more tactical.

2vs2 is almost never 2vs2. It's 2vs1 99% of the time, and the 2 beats the 1 another 99% of the time.
As for unlimited turns...urgh, I have horrible memories of the other side being 1 vampire lord that my troops cannot kill, or go anywhere near. That's what unlimited turn games become. It's uninteresting.

I see warhammer like the old medieval style of war.
Your troops set up in the morning after eating and sleeping, they fight untill mid-afternoon where the light starts to fade and then they all re-group and one side gives up. Failing that they re-do the whole thing again the following day untill a winner is decided upon.

Okay fine....a vampire lord might be perfectly happy to fight continually for several months, the troops he's fighting are not going to do that and are going to pack up and go home after butchering his army.

I like VP anyway, its a nice guage to see how well things have done. And how well the battleplan played out. Plus the uber enemy lord doesnt have to be killed, merely held up for most of the game.

dooombot
31-01-2009, 03:04
playing some scenarios other than a Pitched Battle is always fun, even just the barebones ones in the BRB.
does anyone mostly just do PB?personally i like scenarios, gives you a more concrete goal than just 'kill everything'

fastcarfreak- have you and your friends ever tried using the Legendary Battles rules? very cool for 2v2 epic battles, and they use some Objectives liked you see in a 40k game

Devon Harmon
31-01-2009, 05:42
I go to victory points in one of my gaming groups, but in the other it's usually done `by eye'. Most of time I believe that if you have to calculate victory points to decide the winner, it can't be that obvious so is probably close enough to call a draw.

We just eyeball it too, after 6 turns. It is usually fairly obvious who the winner is. If not, then we call it a draw. Sometimes we will go an extra turn or so, if it furthers the narrative of the battle. Some combats just need to have closure. I think it has been several years since I've figured up actual victory points.

Condottiere
31-01-2009, 09:35
In short, playing 6 turns for VP is more tactical, WAY more tactical.

2vs2 is almost never 2vs2. It's 2vs1 99% of the time, and the 2 beats the 1 another 99% of the time.
As for unlimited turns...urgh, I have horrible memories of the other side being 1 vampire lord that my troops cannot kill, or go anywhere near. That's what unlimited turn games become. It's uninteresting.

I see warhammer like the old medieval style of war.
Your troops set up in the morning after eating and sleeping, they fight untill mid-afternoon where the light starts to fade and then they all re-group and one side gives up. Failing that they re-do the whole thing again the following day untill a winner is decided upon.

Okay fine....a vampire lord might be perfectly happy to fight continually for several months, the troops he's fighting are not going to do that and are going to pack up and go home after butchering his army.

I like VP anyway, its a nice guage to see how well things have done. And how well the battleplan played out. Plus the uber enemy lord doesnt have to be killed, merely held up for most of the game.Pretty much true.

Victory points cause considerations at both tactical and strategic levels. Does that core unit really need a banner, since the chances are that it will be destroyed and captured, or it's part of a brigade and the central regiment can have full command and ranks? However, VPs ted to be static and might need to be scaled. In large games 4K plus, who cares about 100 points per table quarter, but would if they were 200.

Alathir
31-01-2009, 10:30
My gaming group use to add up victory points but we haven't for months now, we can usually tell who the winner is or sometimes the game has been so good then talk of who won doesnt even come up.

infernus31
31-01-2009, 10:45
My gaming group uses victory points, and, since 5th ed 40K, i dont think it will change, being as if we want to play games not decided by VPs we play 40k

(and this has meant a lot more fantasy going on at the moment )

Chicago Slim
31-01-2009, 12:45
Yeah, we sometimes set up a victory condition based on a scenario / storyline, or else add a big pile of VPs for meeting a certain condition, but mostly we play straight VP.

Fairly often, we'll see the writing on the wall by turn 4 or 5, and not bother to finish up, but that's only if it's really snowballing.

We used to play "last man standing" more often, but there are several armies that really struggle with it, because they have relatively few things that generate a ton of kills...

Stuffburger
31-01-2009, 15:04
My games usually last until one player concedes victory after about 5-6 turns, or is too inebriated to play properly.

I'd like to start using VPs though.

Mooglemen
31-01-2009, 18:55
"or is too inebriated to play properly."

I know exactly what you mean. A lot of my games have ended that way. Of course, when you drink for every unit destroyed it really makes you rethink charging in with that throwaway unit...

Keller
02-02-2009, 15:13
We play for points about as often as we don't. Most of our games are played 3 on 3, anymore.

Most games we just play for total victory, calling the game when one side has a clear advantage or one side concedes.

When we play our campaigns, we always calculate victory points, since we need to rank our players in terms of campaign advances. Just because you were on the winning side, doens't mean you did well. We devised a modified system of weighing your earned points vs what you have given the enemy. If you took a savage beating as a distraction for an ally, they will usually send you some resources to rebuild your army as a way of making up for your sacrificing standings to get the game won.

orkz222
02-02-2009, 15:19
6 turns vp here, sometimes counting tables qua/gen/standard etc. sometimes only counting units destroyed/left

Brimweave
02-02-2009, 17:08
Our group normally plays till one or the other army are destroyed. I have only played VP in a game once at my local GW store which was abit annoying to calculate (as my units were in a large pile :p).

scarletsquig
02-02-2009, 18:06
At the end of a game I usually can't be bothered to tally everything up.

If it's a clear win/loss, it's obvious, and if it's not, then it's probably a draw/ minor victory/ who cares?

Usually more interested in getting another game in, or packing up to go home than fiddling around with a calculator.

W0lf
02-02-2009, 18:10
when i started me and my gaming group played 'to the death' but after about a month or 2 we swapped to VPs as its how the game is built to be played, far more tactcial in 6 turns.

its funny but ive always found it takes less then 2 mins to 'tally up' VPs when you both have army lists. Hardly 'tasking' when uve just spent ~2 hours playing.

Stouty
02-02-2009, 18:20
VPs all the way, although we sometimes mix things up a little by having objectives to play around as well (whoever can get the most US withing 6" of the middle of the board gains +1000vps in a 2000pts game or something, +50vps for every wound caused in a challenge etcwe have a table for it) that encourage people to keep their lists with a little flexibility, as well as just being fun. But most of the time straight VPs work fine for me.

Keller
02-02-2009, 21:11
VPs all the way, although we sometimes mix things up a little by having objectives to play around as well (whoever can get the most US withing 6" of the middle of the board gains +1000vps in a 2000pts game or something, +50vps for every wound caused in a challenge etcwe have a table for it) that encourage people to keep their lists with a little flexibility, as well as just being fun. But most of the time straight VPs work fine for me.

I like this idea; adding in new VP oppertunities such as wounds in challenges, challenges issued, etc. These little things can be used to help sway the game play a bit without altering major objectives. I will have to keep it in mind for our next go.

Dark_Mage99
03-02-2009, 00:46
Sometimes when I play friendly games, we do battles to the death and no victory points... can be a nice change.

Chain
03-02-2009, 01:52
I have been reading on these boards for a long time now. My group and I have always played total victory (meaning destroying opponents entire army or close to it) when we play warhammer. Back when we first started playing, it seemed that this was the way to go (and also the way we were taught). Now it seems that everyone but my group plays strictly victory points. I was hoping to spark a discussion amongst people who play both ways (if any of you are left). What are your thoughts?

My thoughts: I find that playing total victory adds more excitement to the game. Being that I play mostly multiplayer battles (2v2), this has always been the quickest and most fun way of doing it. As a matter of fact, I dont think I can remember a single game where it actually lasted 6 rounds before it was blatently obvious who was the victor. We usually just play until one side consedes the game. Even when we get to those battles where it seems that it may be super close, they still dont last 6 rounds. Please add your experiences.

well at least you had a maximum amount of turns.

I remember back when I first played warhammer we usually played Last man standing.
To **** off my bro I sometimes Included Aekold Helbrass= pretty much Auto Win, unless he were one of the last models killed.

theunwantedbeing
03-02-2009, 03:15
well at least you had a maximum amount of turns.

I remember back when I first played warhammer we usually played Last man standing.
To **** off my bro I sometimes Included Aekold Helbrass= pretty much Auto Win, unless he were one of the last models killed.

Now there's a hailarious image.
A giant jumping up and down on him.....after a few minutes of that decides he's most definitely dead and then wanders off. But then Aekold get's back up again, dusts himself off before he is then envoled in shadow..he looks around and then finally up, and the giant lands on him again to jump up and down on him for the next few minutes.
And so it repeats long into the night where finally the giant gets tired and falls asleep. Aekold get's back up again and sneaks off into the night, unfortunately he steps on a twig...waking the giant and starting the whole process again.....

Scythe
03-02-2009, 07:04
I go to victory points in one of my gaming groups, but in the other it's usually done `by eye'. Most of time I believe that if you have to calculate victory points to decide the winner, it can't be that obvious so is probably close enough to call a draw.

Plus, quite often I find the victory point system encourages a style of play which, for me, isn't much fun. For example, players avoiding the much loved general on general showdown so they can fly off and claim a table quarter, meaning I just pass my final turn with nothing to do but reach for the calculator :(.

Cheers,

enyoss

Pretty much this for me. It is usally easy enough to determine a winner, although we fly over approximate points gained if it looks close. It means that, in friendly games, I can be a bit more casual with my units. Just like said, it gives you less reason to abort your glorious, but ultimately risky, last turn charge to the enemy general.

Tournament games are a different matter though.

The Clairvoyant
03-02-2009, 12:35
We've only recently been adding up VPs. Before that we just played to the death.
Well, we'd play 6 turns and see who's winning by visual method (rather than counting up VPs) then carry on and see who wins in the end with the last man standing.

In the past year or so, we've opted for VPs just to see what its like and although it has its advantages (a clear numerical system), it also has its disadvantages as the last player turn can often end up in a very short turn of simply moving to contest table quarters and not engaging in combat for fear of giving away VPs.

I prefer the 'see who lives longest' method :D

badgeraddict
03-02-2009, 14:28
Always played using victory points, always will.

Why change a method that works?

BajsArne
03-02-2009, 14:56
Lately I have been losing or drawing when counting victory points, so I prefer alternative ways. Last night, the objective was to corrupt an elven pond by having most of my army poop in it. It went fairly well, and my general will be back.

Chicago Slim
03-02-2009, 15:46
"or is too inebriated to play properly."

I know exactly what you mean. A lot of my games have ended that way. Of course, when you drink for every unit destroyed it really makes you rethink charging in with that throwaway unit...

Hrm. It occurs to me that the Warhammer Drinking Game ought to involve drinking when you roll well-- so as to balance out the luck!