Peterborough Wargames Club
April 21, 2019, 10:10:47 pm *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Note for prospective members:
* Please choose a screen name that reflects your real name
* Please drop an email note to the info@ address introducing yourself.
 
  Home   FORUM MAIN   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
 1 
 on: Today at 10:08:05 pm 
Started by tony - Last post by Michael
I'm in American Marines.

 2 
 on: Today at 09:21:02 pm 
Started by tony - Last post by martink0646
Hi Rob,

There was no attempt to hobble you in the decision regarding forward deployment, you did not enter my thoughts but I don't want to ruin your game so I could allow forward deployment.

However, I don't want it to be an auto-win for you & I think you are more than capable of winning without the forward deployment. If you can say to me that you have a massive handicap without it & will struggle to compete then I'll allow it but if you can play & compete without it then that would be an interesting challenge for you?

Let me know your thoughts.

Martin

 3 
 on: Today at 02:11:35 pm 
Started by tony - Last post by Rob Farley
Martin, are you sure you want to go with 3 objective markers for the game? It's putting a huge emphasis on the dice roll to determine who places the first marker, in fact the whole game could be decided on that one roll.

Whover wins the roll winds up with two markers sat on their own baseline (perfectly legit, there's no minimum distance from the board edge), all they have to do is defend. There's no way for the enemy to even attempt to contest them until turn 4, more likely turn 5, and that would involve running the width of the table. Especially since you've banned forward deployment as well, which just makes the situation worse.

With 4 markers, both players would place 2 each. That would make things even and force them to actually engage with each other to avoid a draw.

I'm predicting some very dull, one-sided games, unless whoever wins the roll-off deliberately avoids the best tactical option.

Hi Rob,

It's not quite that simple as there are two dice rolls...first to choose who places the objective first & then the second for table side.  If someone places two objectives on their backline then loses the dice roll to choose sides they have f!*ked themselves.  If we go with even numbers, especially at low points value, then I think we are guaranteeing draws & 5 objectives is too many for the force sizes.  I am happy with the number of objectives & don't really want to change it.

However, I could be persuaded to say all obectives have to be placed 6" either side of the centre line.......although I do like the jeopardy of risking everything on one roll of the dice i.e. placing two objectives clsoe to 'your' table edge & then losing the roll thereby handing the game to your opponent.  Sensible people will place it near the centre, gamblers & risk takers will not & they'll have a 50/50 chance of losing because of it.

I would rather give people the choice to behave badly & watch them get their fingers burned  Grin

Alternatively I could just place the objectives myself but I don't want to do that really.

Your thoughts....

MartinK
Ah, yes. Missed that detail. My bad.  Embarrassed

Although I wish I was playing Finns. That could really work with Finns. Plus, then I'd have some army special rules to use, since you've decided to neuter both of mine.

Not done on purpose & definitely not personal Rob & only for the first round.  I might be going out on a limb here but I think you'll be alright Smiley. It'll be interesting to see how that dice change works for you.
All I know is, I'm scrambling to come up with a list that'll work for this scenario and within the framework of the league. The nice themed approach that I discussed with you a few weeks ago has been knocked on the head by your house-rules.

 4 
 on: Today at 08:31:53 am 
Started by Mike Whitaker - Last post by Shawn Comer
Anyone up for a game of Saga or Armada perhaps?

 5 
 on: Today at 07:26:45 am 
Started by tony - Last post by martink0646
Martin, are you sure you want to go with 3 objective markers for the game? It's putting a huge emphasis on the dice roll to determine who places the first marker, in fact the whole game could be decided on that one roll.

Whover wins the roll winds up with two markers sat on their own baseline (perfectly legit, there's no minimum distance from the board edge), all they have to do is defend. There's no way for the enemy to even attempt to contest them until turn 4, more likely turn 5, and that would involve running the width of the table. Especially since you've banned forward deployment as well, which just makes the situation worse.

With 4 markers, both players would place 2 each. That would make things even and force them to actually engage with each other to avoid a draw.

I'm predicting some very dull, one-sided games, unless whoever wins the roll-off deliberately avoids the best tactical option.

Hi Rob,

It's not quite that simple as there are two dice rolls...first to choose who places the objective first & then the second for table side.  If someone places two objectives on their backline then loses the dice roll to choose sides they have f!*ked themselves.  If we go with even numbers, especially at low points value, then I think we are guaranteeing draws & 5 objectives is too many for the force sizes.  I am happy with the number of objectives & don't really want to change it.

However, I could be persuaded to say all obectives have to be placed 6" either side of the centre line.......although I do like the jeopardy of risking everything on one roll of the dice i.e. placing two objectives clsoe to 'your' table edge & then losing the roll thereby handing the game to your opponent.  Sensible people will place it near the centre, gamblers & risk takers will not & they'll have a 50/50 chance of losing because of it.

I would rather give people the choice to behave badly & watch them get their fingers burned  Grin

Alternatively I could just place the objectives myself but I don't want to do that really.

Your thoughts....

MartinK
Ah, yes. Missed that detail. My bad.  Embarrassed

Although I wish I was playing Finns. That could really work with Finns. Plus, then I'd have some army special rules to use, since you've decided to neuter both of mine.

Not done on purpose & definitely not personal Rob & only for the first round.  I might be going out on a limb here but I think you'll be alright Smiley. It'll be interesting to see how that dice change works for you.

 6 
 on: Yesterday at 06:33:45 pm 
Started by tony - Last post by Rob Farley
Martin, are you sure you want to go with 3 objective markers for the game? It's putting a huge emphasis on the dice roll to determine who places the first marker, in fact the whole game could be decided on that one roll.

Whover wins the roll winds up with two markers sat on their own baseline (perfectly legit, there's no minimum distance from the board edge), all they have to do is defend. There's no way for the enemy to even attempt to contest them until turn 4, more likely turn 5, and that would involve running the width of the table. Especially since you've banned forward deployment as well, which just makes the situation worse.

With 4 markers, both players would place 2 each. That would make things even and force them to actually engage with each other to avoid a draw.

I'm predicting some very dull, one-sided games, unless whoever wins the roll-off deliberately avoids the best tactical option.

Hi Rob,

It's not quite that simple as there are two dice rolls...first to choose who places the objective first & then the second for table side.  If someone places two objectives on their backline then loses the dice roll to choose sides they have f!*ked themselves.  If we go with even numbers, especially at low points value, then I think we are guaranteeing draws & 5 objectives is too many for the force sizes.  I am happy with the number of objectives & don't really want to change it.

However, I could be persuaded to say all obectives have to be placed 6" either side of the centre line.......although I do like the jeopardy of risking everything on one roll of the dice i.e. placing two objectives clsoe to 'your' table edge & then losing the roll thereby handing the game to your opponent.  Sensible people will place it near the centre, gamblers & risk takers will not & they'll have a 50/50 chance of losing because of it.

I would rather give people the choice to behave badly & watch them get their fingers burned  Grin

Alternatively I could just place the objectives myself but I don't want to do that really.

Your thoughts....

MartinK
Ah, yes. Missed that detail. My bad.  Embarrassed

Although I wish I was playing Finns. That could really work with Finns. Plus, then I'd have some army special rules to use, since you've decided to neuter both of mine.

 7 
 on: Yesterday at 06:30:43 pm 
Started by tony - Last post by martink0646
I wanted to encourage minor powers armies but in the end only two people have decided to go that route. 
Three people.  Grin

Yes...overlooked Tom G!!!  Shocked

 8 
 on: Yesterday at 06:29:41 pm 
Started by tony - Last post by martink0646
Martin, are you sure you want to go with 3 objective markers for the game? It's putting a huge emphasis on the dice roll to determine who places the first marker, in fact the whole game could be decided on that one roll.

Whover wins the roll winds up with two markers sat on their own baseline (perfectly legit, there's no minimum distance from the board edge), all they have to do is defend. There's no way for the enemy to even attempt to contest them until turn 4, more likely turn 5, and that would involve running the width of the table. Especially since you've banned forward deployment as well, which just makes the situation worse.

With 4 markers, both players would place 2 each. That would make things even and force them to actually engage with each other to avoid a draw.

I'm predicting some very dull, one-sided games, unless whoever wins the roll-off deliberately avoids the best tactical option.

Hi Rob,

It's not quite that simple as there are two dice rolls...first to choose who places the objective first & then the second for table side.  If someone places two objectives on their backline then loses the dice roll to choose sides they have f!*ked themselves.  If we go with even numbers, especially at low points value, then I think we are guaranteeing draws & 5 objectives is too many for the force sizes.  I am happy with the number of objectives & don't really want to change it.

However, I could be persuaded to say all obectives have to be placed 6" either side of the centre line.......although I do like the jeopardy of risking everything on one roll of the dice i.e. placing two objectives clsoe to 'your' table edge & then losing the roll thereby handing the game to your opponent.  Sensible people will place it near the centre, gamblers & risk takers will not & they'll have a 50/50 chance of losing because of it.

I would rather give people the choice to behave badly & watch them get their fingers burned  Grin

Alternatively I could just place the objectives myself but I don't want to do that really.

Your thoughts....

MartinK

 9 
 on: Yesterday at 06:27:42 pm 
Started by tony - Last post by Rob Farley
I wanted to encourage minor powers armies but in the end only two people have decided to go that route. 
Three people.  Grin

 10 
 on: Yesterday at 06:18:49 pm 
Started by tony - Last post by martink0646
I'm assuming it means that we can replace the order dice that comes out of the bag with one that's a different colour, i.e. the other person has to activate a unit instead.

Yes.  Basically, someone playing a minor power can choose to change the dice activation. e.g. they want the first dice out of the bag on a particular round but the opponent draws it then they can change it for one of theirs.  Since day one I have said that there will be a bonus for minor powers.  I wanted to encourage minor powers armies but in the end only two people have decided to go that route.  I was going to give them points originally but this way is more fun & they still have to earn the points.

MartinK

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!