Help with BBB scenarios...

All the latest and greatest info concerning the constant struggle and strife across Middle-earth!

Help with BBB scenarios...

Postby BrentS » Mon Mar 05, 2012 4:54 pm

As we move into Warbands style gaming, I need to consider the impact of the new scenarios towards tournament gaming. I'm looking for any feedback that players as they play the scenarios in the new sourcebooks "as written".

Specifically, I'm looking for:

How did the scenario play as written and is there anything you would have liked to see done differently?
How did the warbands deployment work for your game?
How many VPs were scored in your game (total and break down between you and your opponent)
How did the end game condition (50%, extra turns, etc) work for your game?

Obviously these are broad questions and could be anwered different by many players. Since I don't get a chance to play as much as I'd like to, I'm really just trying to learn from what other people see and apply these learnings to the tournament.

Thanks!
User avatar
BrentS
 
Posts: 6295
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 11:38 pm

Re: Help with BBB scenarios...

Postby BostonNazgul » Mon Mar 05, 2012 5:31 pm

High Ground:

Warband group deployment was fine.
deployment zones was not fine. Allowing warbands to deploy 24inches in let you set up on the hill which made it a mute point in "taking" the high ground and was just a slap fest from the start. also through archery or any sort of tactics out the window.

VPs scored I forget, but a MAJOR problem with all the scenarios is having the end point rely on breaking the enemy, and then rewarding VPs at the end of the game for having your opponent broken.

For example, my 2nd game was recon. theoretically I could have gotten 1 model off the board, and kyle had broken my army while he was not broken, but failed to get any models off the board. I lose because he scores 3 points to my 1 point for 1 model off the board to his none.

I understand their intentions in the scenarios but across the board you need to adjust VP according to the objective originally laid out in LOME and now carried over to warbands.

basically you need to make custom VPs for each of the scenarios. the side VPs should not outnumber the main objective VPs, tie or less than if anything.

Deployment solutions could be the averaging of LOME editions with the warbands books.

as with lome I do not like an unknown luck variable to a game ending, so the 1 or a 2 doesnt work for me as well as the randomized points of entry in some scenarios, just cause its skirmish doesnt mean they are idiots and would be marching next to the enemy the whole time.
User avatar
BostonNazgul
 
Posts: 2432
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 8:18 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Help with BBB scenarios...

Postby Smeagol » Mon Mar 05, 2012 7:12 pm

I've played most of the scenarios so far. I haven't had a problem with any of them as far as victory points go. Luck plays a factor in the deployment of some of the scenarios (Reconnoitre and Hold Ground especially), but tactics did overcome the uneven application of luck. Less skilled players will feel the effects of baf luck more than others.

Matchups haven't been a problem, though my list of available opposing forces is a whole lot less varied than what I typically see at a tournament. I haven't seen a horde force played nor have I seen many of the big nasty models other than the Great Beast.

We've switched to playing on 6x4 foot tables and this hasn't caused any serious issues in the game. It has given cavalry forces the freedom of movement to be mobile and more threatening. The smaller tables typically relegated cavalry to frontal attacks. Terrain is still a game factor if it is chosen wisely. Enough to give some missile defense or difficult terrain, but not so much to make a table biased towards one force or another like it was on the 4x4 tables in some matchups.

I haven't played Domination yet, but so far all of the scenarios allow you to win by defeating the opposing force in combat (break it and/or kill leader) and/or complete the scenario objectives. This gives smaller forces a chance to compete with larger ones where numbers would typically dominate. I've rarely seen Reconnoitre become a fierce combat because that is not how you won that scenario, but it is a serious consideration with the new one.

So far I'm all for as written.
User avatar
Smeagol
 
Posts: 2664
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 8:20 pm

Re: Help with BBB scenarios...

Postby Trollboy » Tue Mar 06, 2012 8:40 am

I agree with Smeagal. All the new scenerios have worked fine. I do think the 4 by 6 table is important for strategy.
Trollboy
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 10:52 am

Re: Help with BBB scenarios...

Postby BrentS » Tue Mar 06, 2012 9:08 am

Interesting take on the 4x6 boards. My personal preference is to keep the 4x4 boards. I struggle with the idea that armies are getting smaller and the boards are getting larger. I play a lot of cavalry heavy armies and I've never had significant issues in maneuvering around.

Another consideration, at least for the tournament setting, is the amount of terrain we have available. If the field size grows (or even maintains) but the board size increases, I don't have enough quality terrain to keep up.
User avatar
BrentS
 
Posts: 6295
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 11:38 pm

Re: Help with BBB scenarios...

Postby prion2001 » Tue Mar 06, 2012 9:38 am

BrentS wrote:Interesting take on the 4x6 boards. My personal preference is to keep the 4x4 boards. I struggle with the idea that armies are getting smaller and the boards are getting larger. I play a lot of cavalry heavy armies and I've never had significant issues in maneuvering around.

Another consideration, at least for the tournament setting, is the amount of terrain we have available. If the field size grows (or even maintains) but the board size increases, I don't have enough quality terrain to keep up.

I agree. I think either size works and espeically now with the size of forces being reduced. Plus, I know space and terrain are limited which is my biggest concern as well.

They are some VP issues that I think should be considered. It appears that tabeling your opponent gives you the win and I'm not sure that killing stuff should be the sole criteria in the end. Things like objetives and such might trump killing for the win which forces people to play to the objectives and not just kill everything and forget tactics and stratagy. Also, wording of some scenarios and deployment should be looked at. For instance, I played a game with standard delployment (withing 12" or anywhere based on dice roll) and the wording could be interpreted (and was by my opponent) to mean ANYWHERE not anywhere in your deployment zone half.

But I think the new scenarios are going to be interesting to see how they affect composition of warbands and such. It would seem to me, archers without much else going for them, may be at a disadvantage with the random deployment distance. My dwarfs are fine as they can use the bow or fight and so I can adapt as needed. I'd hate to be a wood elf archer though. :wink:
"It is a strange fate that we should suffer so much fear and doubt over so small a thing." Boromir
Check out my painting blog at http://www.fivearmies.blogspot.com
Shop Gorgon Studios. http://www.gorgon-studios.com
User avatar
prion2001
 
Posts: 1328
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 3:03 pm
Location: Tinley Park, IL

Re: Help with BBB scenarios...

Postby jlong05 » Tue Mar 06, 2012 9:41 am

BostonNazgul wrote:High Ground:

Warband group deployment was fine.
deployment zones was not fine. Allowing warbands to deploy 24inches in let you set up on the hill which made it a mute point in "taking" the high ground and was just a slap fest from the start. also through archery or any sort of tactics out the window.

VPs scored I forget, but a MAJOR problem with all the scenarios is having the end point rely on breaking the enemy, and then rewarding VPs at the end of the game for having your opponent broken.

For example, my 2nd game was recon. theoretically I could have gotten 1 model off the board, and kyle had broken my army while he was not broken, but failed to get any models off the board. I lose because he scores 3 points to my 1 point for 1 model off the board to his none.

I understand their intentions in the scenarios but across the board you need to adjust VP according to the objective originally laid out in LOME and now carried over to warbands.

basically you need to make custom VPs for each of the scenarios. the side VPs should not outnumber the main objective VPs, tie or less than if anything.

Deployment solutions could be the averaging of LOME editions with the warbands books.

as with lome I do not like an unknown luck variable to a game ending, so the 1 or a 2 doesnt work for me as well as the randomized points of entry in some scenarios, just cause its skirmish doesnt mean they are idiots and would be marching next to the enemy the whole time.


Not sure I agree with the need to adjust VPs as you have laid out. In both cases, it looks to me that you attempted to play the scenario as LoME originally had, but had issues once the VPs were tallied and discovered that the LoME portion is just going to grant bonus points for completing that effort.

As you said, all scentarios in the new Warband setup use breakpoint or 25% left end results and have some sort of bonus for the scanario as well. This allows the smaller force to better match up against the horde as the scenario is only part of the VPs.

Such as High Ground. As you said, deployment can give a solid starting point for one side, howeevr if that side is forced past the break point, the oposing force(while not actually getting the High Ground) can still possibly win depending on how models end up at the end you could take the game because of the broken force rule and killed leader.

In Recon, this is the same. The scenario objectives are no longer just get models off(although you can win that way) they also include reducing the opposing force to 25% and to break yoru opponent and finally to wound and/or kill the opponent's leader. This again allows for a variable option in teh final scoring so that opponent with fast moving models(spiders, wargs, etc...) don't get an auto win because they flew a single model off and then tied your army up all game preventing you from moving a single model off. Now you can simply choose to kill their leader/break their force and when their numbers thin from that effort run a model or two off for the bonus points as well.
The only "hobby" GW is interested in is lining their pockets with your money.
User avatar
jlong05
 
Posts: 587
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2008 8:02 pm
Location: Glendale, AZ (In a lead-lined fridge)

Re: Help with BBB scenarios...

Postby jlong05 » Tue Mar 06, 2012 10:00 am

prion2001 wrote:They are some VP issues that I think should be considered. It appears that tabeling your opponent gives you the win and I'm not sure that killing stuff should be the sole criteria in the end. Things like objetives and such might trump killing for the win which forces people to play to the objectives and not just kill everything and forget tactics and stratagy. Also, wording of some scenarios and deployment should be looked at. For instance, I played a game with standard delployment (withing 12" or anywhere based on dice roll) and the wording could be interpreted (and was by my opponent) to mean ANYWHERE not anywhere in your deployment zone half.


I disagree that tabling your opponent is an auto win. It is dependant on the other VP options available and how scoring ends up happening. It is a better chance for a win by tabling your opponent, but lets be honest here. If you killed your opponents army to a man, woulndn't your army then be free to move as necessary to take/hold objectives anyway? I know this is similar to the 40k view as well, but it is still a valid point of view.

In any case, I can still see in many scenarios ways to either draw, or even get a win depending on how you lost your models. Such as:

To the Death: can be a final result of Draw if you get tabled. (you kill opposing leader for 3 points, but your force and his are broken and your leader runs from the board from a failed check granting opponent 3 for the win and no banners left.)

Domination: Unless your opponent is a fool, this would be hard to force a draw being tabled, but I think that was valid under LoME as well.

Hold Ground: Similar to Domination(although is possible to get a draw, but would require your opponent to not actualy keep a model near the objective. Again though, this was similar to LoME as well.

Lord of Battle: Anyone's game as it simply depends on kills and in the event of a tabling could possibly even grant you a win if you got tabled!

Recon: Possible to win even when tabled by moving models off for bonus and killing opposing leader and breaking their force.

High Ground: Similar again to Domination or hold ground just with a bigger area to hold onto. Hard to be tabled and force a draw.

So, out of the 6 scenarios, half are very possible to be tabled, yet force a draw or even a win in some cases. the other half would most likely result in a loss if tabled, but depending on opponent mistakes, possibly able to eakk out a draw in those (but I wouldn't count on it.)
The only "hobby" GW is interested in is lining their pockets with your money.
User avatar
jlong05
 
Posts: 587
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2008 8:02 pm
Location: Glendale, AZ (In a lead-lined fridge)

Re: Help with BBB scenarios...

Postby Smeagol » Tue Mar 06, 2012 10:15 am

Sudden Death - page 9: "..if one player's force is completely wiped out, his opponent automatically wins!"

Pretty cut and dried here.

As for the deployment zone rules lawyer. Make sure they look at the diagram. They can only deploy on one side of the playing field. They are either side A or side B. Side A cannot deploy on side B's side of the table and visa-versa.

I hear a lot of complaining, but no battle reports. So is nobody actually putting any time into playing the warband rules?
User avatar
Smeagol
 
Posts: 2664
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 8:20 pm

Re: Help with BBB scenarios...

Postby Guardian of Ecthelion » Tue Mar 06, 2012 10:17 am

I agree on the board size, I believe one of the scenarios is random deployment and you might come in from the long board edge. Most warbands as far as I can see, lists I have made, are 3 warbands in a 600 point force. If you happen to be unlucky enough to have to deploy 2 of those warbands onthe long edge you have 2 complete movements just make up that ground. Also you have the 1 warband hanging in the breeze while you reinforcements try to get there.

My biggest problem with the VP system is that some games have more VP available than others. If you table your opponent in one of those you could get 30 some VPs. While other scenarios only offer a fraction of that total. A person in a 5 game tournament could lose 2 or 3 games, table there opponent in that scenario and possibly win the tournament.
Not sure how to handle this in the tournament setting. Do we go to a Win Lose Draw format? THe scenarios as written seem to be balanced and play fairly quickly.

I fully embrace the new system, and I think the scenarios work very well for fun games but in the tournament setting I think there needs to be some tweaks.
User avatar
Guardian of Ecthelion
 
Posts: 877
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 9:26 pm
Location: Wisconsin

Re: Help with BBB scenarios...

Postby jlong05 » Tue Mar 06, 2012 10:19 am

Smeagol wrote:Sudden Death - page 9: "..if one player's force is completely wiped out, his opponent automatically wins!"

Pretty cut and dried here.

As for the deployment zone rules lawyer. Make sure they look at the diagram. They can only deploy on one side of the playing field. They are either side A or side B. Side A cannot deploy on side B's side of the table and visa-versa.

I hear a lot of complaining, but no battle reports. So is nobody actually putting any time into playing the warband rules?

Oh well then I am wrong. I didn't catch that clause as it wasn't in the scenario section. I guess it is possible to 'eliminate' that from tournament play if necessary to grant a possibility of outcomes as I outlined earlier.

Good catch though on my missed rule.
The only "hobby" GW is interested in is lining their pockets with your money.
User avatar
jlong05
 
Posts: 587
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2008 8:02 pm
Location: Glendale, AZ (In a lead-lined fridge)

Re: Help with BBB scenarios...

Postby jlong05 » Tue Mar 06, 2012 10:23 am

Guardian of Ecthelion wrote:My biggest problem with the VP system is that some games have more VP available than others. If you table your opponent in one of those you could get 30 some VPs. While other scenarios only offer a fraction of that total. A person in a 5 game tournament could lose 2 or 3 games, table there opponent in that scenario and possibly win the tournament.
Not sure how to handle this in the tournament setting. Do we go to a Win Lose Draw format? THe scenarios as written seem to be balanced and play fairly quickly.

I fully embrace the new system, and I think the scenarios work very well for fun games but in the tournament setting I think there needs to be some tweaks.

Why do the VPs need to carry over throughout an entire tournament. They are only an indication of the points for a specific game. In tournament play, we would use VPs to identify the win/lose/draw result(or even offer a major/minor based on number of VPs over opponent) and then just use the win/lose/draw points over the 5 - 6 tournament games to determine overall winner.
The only "hobby" GW is interested in is lining their pockets with your money.
User avatar
jlong05
 
Posts: 587
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2008 8:02 pm
Location: Glendale, AZ (In a lead-lined fridge)

Re: Help with BBB scenarios...

Postby sandman36 » Tue Mar 06, 2012 10:31 am

I have quite a few battle reports on my blog. I generally tell you what I thought of the scenario, so take a look. I think the scenarios work as they are, but that doesn't mean things can't be spiced up for tournaments. Changing the things that you get VP for will change the flavor of the scenario. This isn't really different from what we used to do with Legions. You can change deployment, change what gives VP and how much and you have a different game. It's all in the play testing.

http://ahunt-dulceetdecorum.blogspot.com/

Just search on the battle report tag and you'll get them all.
User avatar
sandman36
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 9:22 pm
Location: Colorado

Re: Help with BBB scenarios...

Postby Guardian of Ecthelion » Tue Mar 06, 2012 10:35 am

jlong05 wrote:
Guardian of Ecthelion wrote:My biggest problem with the VP system is that some games have more VP available than others. If you table your opponent in one of those you could get 30 some VPs. While other scenarios only offer a fraction of that total. A person in a 5 game tournament could lose 2 or 3 games, table there opponent in that scenario and possibly win the tournament.
Not sure how to handle this in the tournament setting. Do we go to a Win Lose Draw format? THe scenarios as written seem to be balanced and play fairly quickly.

I fully embrace the new system, and I think the scenarios work very well for fun games but in the tournament setting I think there needs to be some tweaks.

Why do the VPs need to carry over throughout an entire tournament. They are only an indication of the points for a specific game. In tournament play, we would use VPs to identify the win/lose/draw result(or even offer a major/minor based on number of VPs over opponent) and then just use the win/lose/draw points over the 5 - 6 tournament games to determine overall winner.


Right I understand that. But we would need to assaign a point value to winning the game. Someone who wins all 5 or 6 games needs more than 5 or 6 points. A good general who is not a great painter might not be able to make up the points to have a shot to win best overall. It needs to fair for everyone, the gamer and the hobyist.

What I was thinking is something along the 40K scoresheet used at Adepticon. Offer primary, secondary and tertiary objectives. Primary objective worth more battle points than the tertiary objective and so on.

Is this derailing from the original question? If so sorry Brent.
User avatar
Guardian of Ecthelion
 
Posts: 877
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 9:26 pm
Location: Wisconsin

Re: Help with BBB scenarios...

Postby BrentS » Tue Mar 06, 2012 11:14 am

Hmm... something strange happened in that I had a post written for this topic that never actually got posted. This is the second time I've experienced this. It must be user error....


Anyway, my plan for BBB is to still use the Major/Minor/Draw outcomes as ways to assign battle points. The Victory Points conditions in the scenario will define what a Major or Minor win/loss is defined as. I know in the new sourcebooks (probably on the same page that Smeagol points out the "sudden death rule" that there was a statement about winning a game with double the VPs of your opponent as a "staggering victory" (or something like that). So maybe there is a way to have reaching a certain level of VPs be a Major vs Minor.

Anyway, I appreciate all these feedback on this thread and I'd love to see people add more feedback as more games are played. Maybe I can even get the tread sticked with a new title "Impact of New Scenarios on Tournament Play".

Keep the feedback coming. Its all very helpful.
User avatar
BrentS
 
Posts: 6295
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 11:38 pm

Next

Return to Lord of the Rings News

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron