PDA

View Full Version : Concept behind new rulebook and tournament games - tournament scenario missing?



Marked_by_chaos
08-07-2012, 21:11
Reading the new rulebook and the setting up battles section it is pretty obvious that whilst attempting to keep a broad appeal to the new rules, GW are really pushing the narrative/fun approach over any ultra-serious competitive approach to 6th edition.

This is probably a good thing as the core dynamics to the rule system are not particularly suited to a serious competitive environment.

A good example of this are the terrain placement rules. There is no automatic preference toward the alternating deployment basis for terrain and if (as I am) you are more narratively minded you can equally request that terrain is set up to form a believable landscape i.e. attack on settlement, forrest ambush, bunker assault etc.

What suprises me is that, given the more narrative approach and the reality that, particularly on-line, there would be major dissent if rule changes dimished someones meticulously calculated optimum build list, that they did not put a tournament scenario in the battles section of the book.

I play Epic Armageddon when I can and in the rulebook they have a tournament scenario which is reasonably well calibrated so that games can be palyerd in a more competitive environment (although the core rules are also more abstract and balanced for competitive purposes)

I am suprised that they did not think of putting such a scenario in the new rulebook. I prefer a more narrative game but it would be well suited to those who just want a pick up game with no particular narrative.


I could see it being along these lines:


Victory points determine winner.
No nightfighting
No random game length - always 6 turns
No mysterious objectives
Use alternating deployment rules

Each player sets up 3 objectives - 1 in their deployment zone, 1 in their opponents half of the table outside their deployment zone and 1 in their table half outside their deployment zone. Objectives must be at least 12 inches apart.

Killpoints - 1vp for each unit destroyed (or imobilised, falling back etc at end of game).
Hold ground - 1vp for each objective held at the end of each game turn (cumulative)
Breakthrough - 3vp at game end for whoever holds the objectives in each players deployment zone
Stand fast - 3vp at game end if the player holds all objectives in their own tablehalf
Break their will - 3vp for destroying the most expensive non-hq enemy unit
Decapitation - 3vp for killing enemy warlord

What are your thoughts?

I am also tempted by a rule allowing players 1 "strategic" re-roll as a way of counterbalancing rotten luck. Its up to the player when to use it and as ever you cannot re-roll a re-roll.

Noserenda
08-07-2012, 21:36
Because variable scenarios help balance the meta, you need to think about objectives, VPs, Deployment and a certain random factor when building the list.

Marked_by_chaos
08-07-2012, 22:01
Because variable scenarios help balance the meta, you need to think about objectives, VPs, Deployment and a certain random factor when building the list.

I agree to a point. However, I think they are a bit too slanted and the idea for the scenario is a one off balanced game taking a bit of the randomness away. Some armies by nature will always be a bit more heavy support or fast attack orientated for example.

Sami
08-07-2012, 22:24
A lot of tournaments have their own missions anyway, so GW might as well focus on presenting "narrative" missions instead as that is their main focus for 6th.

Charistoph
09-07-2012, 05:46
I know my LGS set each tournament round to a specific mission and setup pattern, with the terrain already placed according to the table in 5th. They haven't had a tournmant for 6th yet, I think, so I don't know how they will set this part up.

Also, 'Ard Boys sets up and announces both scenario and setup a while before it plays.

So a lot really depends on the personalities in the TO to nail down, that leaves any predictions at this point would be hubris.