PDA

View Full Version : Should scenario bonus points scale with army size?



Avian
30-03-2013, 23:02
In most of the scenarios, you can get bonus points for certain things. For example getting 100 bonus VPs for killing the enemy general. This bonus is always the same and you get 100 pts for killing the general in a 800 pt game as well as in a 2400 pt game and an 8000 pt game.

It would not necessarily be that way. In smaller battles the bonus could be 50 pts, for example, while it could be 200 pts in bigger battles.

Are you happy with the current system, or do you wish the bonus points would scale?

SimaoSegunda
31-03-2013, 00:57
I voted they should scale, but I want to include a caveat: They shouldn't scale on a flat ratio, I.E. "75 VPs per 1000pts", rather I think it should be more like "0-1000pts: 100vps. 1001-2000pts: 125vps. 2001-4000pts: 150vps". The reason I say this, is that in my mind, a small-scale game represents something like an ambush where killing the general (or sub-commander) might be the main aim, whereas in a larger battle, there are likely to be other objectives, so killing the enemy general becomes less of a focus.

Although this is beyond the remit of the poll, I also think there should be a rule that if your designated general kills enemy characters in combat, that should gain you extra vps. I don't know how many, but it seems it would be a way to encourage people to take fighty characters again, rather than keeping the general alive at all costs.

tmarichards
31-03-2013, 01:00
I voted for them to stay the same, purely for the sake of simplicity. I'm sure that if it was the case that they'd scaled it would be the work of a moment to work out how much it would cost and we'd all soon get used to it, but for me the last thing I want to do after a game is work out more maths. A flat 100 for each is just nice and easy.

Urgat
31-03-2013, 08:50
I'd rather it stayed low. It's not like it's fair or balanced any way you'd think of anyway. You get 100 vp for killing a skaven warlord, and you get the same for killing a slaan... So all in all I'd rather he'd be a low impact bonus.

Avian
31-03-2013, 10:23
I'd rather it stayed low. It's not like it's fair or balanced any way you'd think of anyway. You get 100 vp for killing a skaven warlord, and you get the same for killing a slaan... So all in all I'd rather he'd be a low impact bonus.
Would you prefer it if you got a lesser bonus for killing the warlord in a smaller battle? That's another form of scaling.

sulla
31-03-2013, 20:29
Those bonuses listed in the original post, I would probably keep at the current static level; I consider them merely as tie-breakers at the current level and they're fine as is. The VPs I would scale would be bigger ones in custom scenarios, like say, if you wanted vps for capturing key parts of the battlefield or finding treasure. In those types of scenarios, if the vp's don't scale then it gives less incentive in the bigger battles to actually stick to the mission and more incentive to just build a killy army of death-doom.

Ratarsed
01-04-2013, 08:39
I voted for staying as they are. I think the importance and value of leaders is greater in small battles than in large ones.

Urgat
01-04-2013, 08:47
Would you prefer it if you got a lesser bonus for killing the warlord in a smaller battle? That's another form of scaling.

Nah, there's no way to balance that, really. You can argue that a slaan costs more than 100 pts, but you can also argue that a skaven warlord is more vital to the army as a whole. A small fixed 100VP bonus is fine for me.

bhusus
01-04-2013, 12:03
Maybe run it like a real battle in that you have junior commanders and make them worth 75/50 etc.?

Blinder
01-04-2013, 14:15
I voted "scale," but I wouldn't have minded an option for some scaling and others not- at least in terms of "points per event." Of the three bonuses I can think of in the rulebook (general, banners, underdog), two already scale in a way: in larger games it seems somewhat implied that there should be more banners (if it happens is another story); larger games also provide more champions to throw in the way of characters (and thus possibly get lucky on underdog points). The General I think could do with scaling down to 75 at/below 1000-ish though, not that it's a huge difference.

The real need for scaling are when scenarios intend VP bonuses to form the basis of victory. A lot of times these are seen in a tournament setting so it's easier to state points values, but as the ideas are appropriated for use in other tournaments or standard games, the values need to be considered for a moment to make sure they still "work" if you're playing at a different total than wherever you got the idea (and indeed, to make sure they actually worked in the original event to begin with).

Horus38
02-04-2013, 12:39
I voted scaling with the main idea being for large games (3,000 points+) those objectives should be worth more. I think it's fine as is for anything less.

leopard
02-04-2013, 18:49
Everything should be based on the scenario size:

- VP to "win" (not +100 over the enemy)
- force allocation (as it is now)
- winds of magic (would solve a few problems, and cause a few more)
- table size - harder to do but even as a guide in the book would work very well
- bonus VP for doing "x"

Avian
02-04-2013, 21:15
Current thinking on my planned scenario card system thingymabob is that bonus VPs should come in one of three categories (in addition to splatting stuff):

- Lesser (killing the general, capturing standards, killing heroes with champions, etc) should be the same no matter the points level, to keep it simple.
- Greater (holding objectives and similar) should be at 25 % of the battle size
- Exalted (holding the watchtower in Watchtower, breaking the enemy army in Blood & Glory) should be at 50 % of the battle size

The thinking being that you will have calculated those levels already when writing up your army list, so it's no additional work to figure them out.


And now that I've set the victory conditions, I just need to write the scenarios... ;)

Malorian
03-04-2013, 13:42
I think things like banners should stay the same since larger games means more banners, but I think the general should be worth 5% of the army or something to make sure it scales.