View Full Version : Margin of victory in unequal points values

01-01-2010, 13:11
Hello good folks, of warseer now as you may or may not be aware I'm running a campaign over the border princes, sometimes of which the battles aren't equally pointed. This throws us a little bit into a quandry because we just had an unequal battle (1450 v 1550 points) which depending on whose victory chart table we use will change the margin of victory and thus the campaign's direction.

So I'm looking for your opinion (and if possible the reasoning) on which table we should use.

On the top of my head I can think of the follow rationales though there are others

a) Average the points of the two forces and use that table
b) Use the table most advantageous to the lower pointed army
c) Use the table most advantageous to the winner
d) Use the table of the winner

01-01-2010, 13:16
In our campaigns, we used the table for the SMALLER army, but we also gave advantages to the smaller army.

01-01-2010, 13:48
I'd give it to the one most advantageous to the lower pointed army, since it is the side that tends to be handicapped.

The Red Scourge
01-01-2010, 13:52
How about going for scenarios beyond the pitched battle?

Gazak Blacktoof
01-01-2010, 13:57
I would use the table of the winner.

It offers an advantage to the small army and is easy to remember.

This also seems to the standard in tournaments where forces are of unequal points values.

01-01-2010, 14:06
How about going for scenarios beyond the pitched battle?

If that's you being cheeky then pffft :p
If that's you asking an honest question, then we will but one step at a time, stay tuned :)

01-01-2010, 15:00
My gaming group is doing a similar campaign where larger empires get a points bonus per round (normally like 50-75 pts) and we are also using a gold token system where you can buy more points. Because of this we have similar problems where there can be a possible 175 pt difference.

To this end we use the table of the winner as it gives a slight advantage to the lower points player. Additionally we are playing 2 randomly determined objectives for each player. Things like take objective marker, capture table quarters...that sort of thing. The bonus VP's for those are 10% of the points value of the army you are facing per objective taken. ie - If you are fighting a 1575 pt army then you would get 157VPs per objective whilst if you were using a 1500pt army your opponent would get 150. We are also playing table quarters, banners and generals as 50vp not 100.

01-01-2010, 16:44
Some nice ideas Azethel, I particularly like the randomly determined objectives and downgrading banner worth.

01-01-2010, 20:43
I've played a number of campaigns that involve armies of differing size (in fact I think I posted the campaigns rules my group wrote up a while back - they were somewhat similar to the campaign rules in the General's Compendium). Anyway, long story short the campaigns I'm in tend to use the margin-of-victory table of the loser. I feel like this most accurately reflects how badly the losing army was damaged, and fluffy reasons like that hold a lot of sway over my campaigning. If a 1000 point army loses to a 2000 point army by 700 victory points it has been pretty thoroughly routed and the campaign should reflect that. I don't see why the smaller army should get a handicap/advantage either; the larger army's general likely employed a clever strategy to trap such a small army and should be rewarded for it.

01-01-2010, 21:32
the larger army's general likely employed a clever strategy to trap such a small army
Well, that will depend on the campaign rules, but I don't think I have ever seen any rules that make it more difficult to bring a smaller foe to battle than a larger foe. For me, the main reason to give an advantage to a smaller army is that I don't want to encourage very uneven battles more than I need to, as they are almost invariably very dull for both players (and too many dull campaign battles leads to players quitting).

01-01-2010, 22:20
If a 1000pts army loses to a 2000pts army, that means one of 2 things mostly likely:

The 1000pts army did little, but not all of it died
The 1000pts army completely/vast majority died but took out a lot of the enemy with them.

I find these are the most common results. An avoidance army will find it hard to make a sizeable impact, but the enemy won't catch all of them. Combat armies can often take out lots of things before being taken down entirely.

Think Archaon's Horde in storm of chaos - the empire won if they wiped out their own points worth of stuff, even though they were outpointed two to one.

In other words, UNLESS there's something odd going on with the campaign rules making it hard for the large army for some reason (sieges would be the main example of this), use the small army.

02-01-2010, 17:44
I think it should be done whatever is in favour of the least experienced player :evilgrin: