|
Post by Dr Carnivean on Apr 24, 2009 13:52:08 GMT -5
Sounds good, just a quick question though, what happens when there is a draw on top of a territory or is fantasy not as likley as 40k to get a draw because with the point system ive come close to 50-50 split with some people. Dante raised an interesting point that had not occured to me previously, but that I want to get some input and make a call on. In fantasy it is pretty common to get a draw result according to their guidelines for what constitutes a win. I think Bob and I have drawn the last few times we've played, with the exception of the dark elves/knornecows fight. With all of the territories there to be conquered and armies bouncing around the board, I'd hate to see people get 'tarpitted' by constant draws against their opponents. So saying, I would almost be leaning towards going strictly by the victory points and the one with the most is the winner, but want to hear what you guys think. When draws do occur, whichever method we use to determine what constitutes one, what would happen is that if both armies moved onto the battlefield territory from another territory, both armies retreat to where they came from, and if an army was defending a territory from an invading army, they would remain where they are and retain control of the territory, while the attacking army retreats to where they came from.
|
|
|
Post by Dr Carnivean on Apr 24, 2009 13:56:46 GMT -5
Another way I thought of would be to have straight up victory points determine the winner when fighting on neutral ground or when both armies move into the space from another territory but use the Warhammer book definition when one army is clearly the defender (ie: did not move that turn). That would be the option 3 in the poll.
|
|
sionnach19
Full Member
Web-Team Editor/Writer
Posts: 2,709
|
Post by sionnach19 on Apr 24, 2009 14:26:13 GMT -5
I think the usual "defenders stay, attackers bounce" rule would work well for draws in this sort of system. However, I don't know how common draws really are in Fantasy and I'd hate to see people getting bogged down with a long string of draws. Perhaps then they could go into an "overtime" turn or count strictly victory points.
|
|
|
Post by dante on Apr 24, 2009 19:18:41 GMT -5
I think the draw would have to depend on the situation, example if I am assaulting a city and there is a draw a tactical general wouldn't withdraw from the area just stay there and get ready for the next assault, my opinion is that there should be overtime if there are certain things going on.
Example- If its turn 6 and one army is ahead by like 12-8 then they win but if its 11-9 or 10-10 then there should be overtime but only if there is a hero or lord on the field, for he will give inspiration to his troops to fight to the end.
Exceptions to this is that if there is no hero or lord left at overtime the defender is the winner because he held out the onslaught but if two armies just meet on the field then the over time will happen automatically.
Another thing is that once overtime has been activated then the battle will continue until all enemy lord and hero choice are killed. One last thing is that once you flee in overtime you can’t rally no matter what, this represents the soldiers have come to the conclusion this isn’t worth dieing for.
I don’t know if this sounds good to anyone else but this is just me spit balling ideas.
|
|
|
Post by dante on Apr 24, 2009 19:19:08 GMT -5
I vote for this way
|
|
|
Post by Dr Carnivean on Apr 26, 2009 12:48:01 GMT -5
Usually points aren't added up until people start packing away minis, and adding up the points is a process that takes a few minutes, so waiting to see how the points work out and then deciding whether to go more turns would be very inefficient. We could just have the game length set to a higher number than 6, which would make draws a lot less common. I was looking in the General's Compendium and it says in the case of a tie, both armies retreat to a friendly space. I'll continue thinking this over as I'm writing the campaign bible, and will make a decision before I finish it. The campaign bible will pretty much include the 7 or eight pages of map campaign rules from the General's Compendium (so I will not be posting it to the site, but rather will e-mail each of the players a copy) plus some rules that will be specific to this campaign, rules and guidelines for how we will be submitting and resolving turn actions and battles, each of the special territory descriptions, a campaign contact list, some fluff, and any relevant house rules that will be in place.
|
|
|
Post by Dr Carnivean on Apr 26, 2009 12:48:41 GMT -5
I should have it out to people sometime mid to late May
|
|
|
Post by RodTheCid on Apr 27, 2009 13:28:34 GMT -5
I would say to handle the Victory conditions as in the rulebook, but that's not really a big deal, the result and conditions for the campaign generating from a draw are the important part.
I think we can follow our own pyramid rules.
1 - Draw when assaulting an occupied territory ----> Attackers bounces 2 - Draw when assaulting non-occupied territory ---> both armies bounce
Note for Brian: Victory conditions in fantasy are determinated by Points difference at the end of the 6th turn; a small difference results in a draw and a very large difference is considered as a Massacre with 2 or 3 more levels in between
|
|
|
Post by dante on Apr 27, 2009 18:08:24 GMT -5
This is a tricky thing, well Jason i like the idea of more turns to prevent draws, makes the game better by not having two armies fight eachother for x number of campaign turns.
OK here just one more question, i hate being that guy who asks those kind of questions but what if more armies meet on one field of battle at once?
|
|
|
Post by Dr Carnivean on Apr 27, 2009 19:23:43 GMT -5
Actually I know the answer to this one. If more than two armies meet in one territory, a die is rolled and the two highest battle one another while the low roller(s) do not move as if they were given a hold action. If one army was the defender (ie did not move and was invaded) then obviously they would automatically be part of the battle and the other armies would have to roll off. It is possible for an army to get support from armies that are adjacent when attacking or defending a territory. Each adjacent army adds 200 extra points to the army it supports.
|
|
|
Post by g on Apr 28, 2009 12:10:21 GMT -5
on the draw discussion, I would suggest the following:
Draw on occupied territory -- Attackers bounce Draw on non-occupied territory -- then whoever has the most victory points wins.
And Dr. C's idea of rolling dice to determine which 2 armies battle should more than 2 meet at one territory can apply to this idea, too.
|
|
|
Post by bob on Apr 28, 2009 13:22:12 GMT -5
I just want to throw out that Draws are very common in Fantasy...far more common than in 40k, in my experience.
|
|
sionnach19
Full Member
Web-Team Editor/Writer
Posts: 2,709
|
Post by sionnach19 on Apr 28, 2009 15:24:29 GMT -5
Actually I know the answer to this one. If more than two armies meet in one territory, a die is rolled and the two highest battle one another while the low roller(s) do not move as if they were given a hold action. If one army was the defender (ie did not move and was invaded) then obviously they would automatically be part of the battle and the other armies would have to roll off. It is possible for an army to get support from armies that are adjacent when attacking or defending a territory. Each adjacent army adds 200 extra points to the army it supports. Hm... now this begs the question, can different players armies support other players? Let's say that Eric's Lizardmen are defending a place and me and G both want it. Let's say I wanna be a sneaky git and feel better about taking on the Brettonians rather than the Lizardmen. Can my Warriors support G in (even though we're different armies/players) to give him the extra points to use, so that he could beat Eric? (Based on that scenario, I would want to get G into the spot so that I could try to take it from him the following turn with hopefully an easier time!) Might be a pretty cool idea to work in, though I'm not sure how... for instance, having two like minded players work together to keep a mutual enemy out of an important territory or something. As to Bob's comment, he's definitely right! Throughout my game with G I wasn't exactly sure what was happening but at the end of it all it was a draw, due to sneaky banners like flags, generals, and table quarters.
|
|
|
Post by Dr Carnivean on Apr 28, 2009 15:51:29 GMT -5
Nope, to support another player's army the two players have to have an established alliance (there are rules for this in the book) and only 'good' can ally with 'good' and so on. Lizardmen are considered viable allies of the good races, incidentally. Actually they're listed as 'maybe' which means that in a DM controlled campaign it's up to the DM, otherwise they can ally with good races. There may be a singular situation in the campaign when anyone can ally - it has to do with the Death Star territory - but I'm still working on ironing out the rules for it. I'm hoping to include it in the next territory preview or the one after
|
|
|
Post by dante on Apr 28, 2009 17:43:17 GMT -5
How are Ogres listed, not good, thats a given, and idk about evil, they are the dogs of war they go where the fighting is the best and where the food is still warm.
|
|