X-cam league rules

I'm not a huge fan of victory points either. I think the kill points/objective system is simple, yet elegant. Kill points versus victory points forces players to take larger units in general, but I don't think that's a bad thing.

i love victory points in my opinion. it is the only thing fantasy has that is better then 40 k. but you are right we need more scenarios.

System Commander wrote:So, before the next league I'll have alot of work to adjust things, but you can definitely take a look at the .pdf's and get a feel for it's going to work. All the base rules will still be applicable, I just plan on altering the scenarios they have listed.

Check it out and let's here what everyone thinks.

System Commander

Um, question, where are these pdf's to look at?

Justin

Oh ok yeah, I've taken a look at those pdf's I thought you'd applied them to 40K and had some rough drafts for us to look at and consider. Nevermind. =P

Justin

They have their 40k pdf's up now. Those are the ones Im talking about.

Ah, I see now. First problem, as a Tau player I took issue looking at the Recon organization chart as I have literally no army to field. a Shas'El has three wounds, Broadsides have 2+ armor saves and Hammerheads have 35 combined armor, thus the only HQ possible is an Ethereal (fat chance in a Recon mission) and the only HS choice is a Sniper Drone Team (which I don't have), and given the 0-1 restrictions on the rest of my options I'm left with almost 0 options for dealing with vehicles (One unit of three crisis suits which I think I'd have to deck out with Fusion Blasters and Missile Pods or TL Missile Pods or TL Fusions Blasters. Problem here is Crisis Suits are more appropriately used to deal with heavy infantry, not vehicles. The other option are Piranhas with Fusion Blasters but once again I don't own any and I don't particularly like them, thus problems again). Although, looking through other codexes I don't see a lot of vehicles even being present, so maybe I'm overreacting. Other than my Tau rant, so if not VPs I'm assuming we'd use the objective markers as being equivalent to a certain VP value depending on the number of objectives and the force level of the armies? Or I was thinking, although this would be a more complex method, have a mixed system. In my mind, HQ's would be worth their cost in VPs, Elites and Heavy Support would be worth half their VPs, the rest of the armies' values would be pooled together and equally distributed into any objective markers.

(EDIT: I missed the part where Recon missions are max 555 pts, so my example below is useful only as an example)
Example:
Both Armies are playing a Recon at 900 pts.
Tau Army has no HQ, 3 Crisis Suits with Missile Pods, Fusion Blasters and two Shield Drones worth 202pts, three Fire Warriors Squads, two Piranhas and two Sniper Drone Teams (as one slot) worth 160pts. Thus, 101pts would be invested in the Elite, 80pts in the Heavy Support, 719pts in the Objectives.
Dark Angels Army has a Chappy with Jump Pack worth 120pts, 5 Svouts w/ 4 Sniper Rifles and a Heavy Bolter for 115pts, one Marine squad with Rhino (I know, unrealistic given the troop heavy emphasis of objective based missions, but let's roll with it), 5 Assault Marines with two Plasma Pistols, Sarge with Plasma Pistol, Combat Shield and Power Fist for 205pts, and a 5 Devastators with 4 Heavy Bolters at 175pts. Thus, 120 is invested in the Chaplain, 57.5 pts is invested in the Scouts, 87.5 is invested in the Devastators leaving 635pts in the Objectives. For the sake of simplicity both players agreed before the round to take the .5 off the Scouts and make the Devastators worth 88 pts.
There are three objectives. The combined objectives pool is 1354 (719+635), thus each objective is worth 451.3 VPs. Either through random d3 rolling or by picking the objective furthest away from either table edge one of the objectives gets the remainder and is worth a whole 452 VPs! The others are worth 451.
Thus, each armies targets are such: for the Tau: 120 for Chappy, 57 for Scouts, 88 for Devastators. For the Marines: 101 for Crisis Suits, 80 for Sniper Drones. For both: two Objectives worth 451 VPs, one Objective worth 452 VPs. I predict an epic stuggle for that 1 VP. =P

So yeah, what I was trying for here is sort of a slanted balance towards objectives but also taking into account that HQ, Elites and Heavy Support are going to be difficult units to easily replace if lost, thus they should be more tantalizing targets for enemy generals other than simply removing a potent threat from their enemies arsenals. So that's my thoughts on that. Criticisms are as always welcome.

Justin

Sweet! Criticisms welcome! Well, your Tau rant is no good. You are playing a 500pt game. Tau are BEST at small point fights. 10 pts for a range 30 str 5 AP5 gun with a 4+ save guy holding it. Take fire warriors to kill infantry and light vehicles/transports and battlesuits to kill everything else. Trust me you will have no problem. Your opponent wouldn't know what to do facing 30 fire warriors in a 500pt game.

BUT, I did see your edit that you did not see the 555pt max rule so I don't know if your problem still stands.

I think the Vp idea is good.
here is my reasoning.
A win is still determined by the victory conditions (objectives, kill pionts etc.).

Recon missions
now i can go for a kick your butt attack and if i kill almost everything , i get 4-5 recon points, but if you get the win , you get 5 bonus points. So you see this balances out verry nice .

Strategic missions
i kinda like the way this one works out to. as the defender you do not care about the winning for yourself (eg, no bonus points for you) , but you might care about it to stop your openent from getting them. So you have to decide wether to just go for more recon/ strategic points , or prevent the chalenger from getting the bonus points.
the only thing here , is i might up the gain for chalenging and winning a bit ( eg 7- 10).

Control mission.
again , the same as the strategic, do you go for the win? and avoid the chalenger the control point ?, or do you got for some strategic points.

over all i like how this works out , the attacker has a harder time to the bonuses, and the defender can choose wether to try stop him , or try to rack up some points as the attacker over extends himself trying to claim his objectives.

It sounds like a good idea, but what about those people who want to play a new movie and don't have the points totals to play. might limit who can play. But points totals are always easy to negotiate though.

Personally, I would say that after X amount of time, the top 4 player enter a playoff. 1 vs. 4 & 2 vs. 3. There would have to be some bonus points based on your rank.

It would basically be the final climatic battles for control of the "planet" or whatever.

As well, I think I mention earlier....i would skew the points a bit differently....

--> 900 or less -- Recon
--> 901 to 1799 -- Strategic
--> 1800+ -- Control

That way you do not have to try to play an Apoc game for your control games.....but it could be interesting to play an Apoc game. Thinking about it again....letting the titan's throw down would be kinda fun....but you might need to put a limit on it. Say...Add a "Apoc Unit" Support slot....probably be 0-2.....to the Force Org chart. This way, Flyers, Ttians and Superheavy could show up, but not be the whole army.

Ryan

I like the idea of apoc stuff on the table. it would give people reason to buy, build and use SH tanks and such. i wouldn't mind trying to build the silver tower of Tzeentch but i just don't have a reason to use it right now, or even to collect a T-son warcoven or some such force. don't drop the apoc idea. maybe reserve them for the playoff though, sorta like you comit the most powerful parts of your force for the final push...

Either way i think it would be a great change from the usual show up and kill your opponent for a major win style. would add a bit of story to the battles.

My concern is that a 3000+ pts game is going to take over 3hrs which would limit playing at the den. Altho I might have to sit out this anyways as I only have 3500ish pts of chaos and my tau and orks are both 2000 pts at best...

3000 wasn't mentioned as the minimum. he just said 2000+ which means all your armies are usable.

a lot of people spend 3 hours playin at the den on league night. You just gotta make sure that your opponent doesn't drag the game. and also apoc games can be played using a time limit as well which could also help with timing issues.

Maybe i should read the xcam scenarios sometime. maybe ill have some more ideas instead of just responses to ideas...

Ok, so i read them and i like the idea. I didn't read the scenarios though, since you said you were going to change the scenario list.

I think in regards to the recon points, they should be awarded based on the main objective. What i mean is if the mission calls for objective points then X amount of recon points per objective held. If it is a kill point mission, then X amount of recon points for each kill point.

Strategic points should be a little more difficult to gain. those could be award based on a major win/loss sort of deal.

With this idea then recon points can still be gained during strategic missions like the design.

Im not very good at scenarios, but when i get a chance to review them, i will let you know what i think we could do.

Well I like the idea of the format. It really makes the games more interesting and worthwhile if they're linked together in a long campaign like this. Plus I like the idea of the 0-1 Heroic units for the Control battles that Ryan suggested.

Though now I'm really going to have to get my butt going and get my sisters painted up for this thing.