Afternoon all

Me and @Wannabe PhD got to talking at a Q2 kit today about how cool it looks to have lots of big units on the board, get that real big army feel. This led us to the question, why not try 300 points?

So, has anyone tried larger than 200 points? Are there any pitfalls we should avoid?

I haven't tried it, but first thoughts are 1) maybe the round time should be increased, and 2) I'd probably put a unit cap on to keep from having a field full of 2-tray units.

Are you keeping the board dimensions the same? It seems like you would get a bit more congested that close together.

1 hour ago, Budgernaut said:

I haven't tried it, but first thoughts are 1) maybe the round time should be increased, and 2) I'd probably put a unit cap on to keep from having a field full of 2-tray units.

You hear that @Evil Doctor T , no Thresher spam for you! In all seriousness though, this is a really good point, like in X-Wing where you're limited to 12 copies of each small ship and 6 large.

33 minutes ago, Xelto said:

Are you keeping the board dimensions the same? It seems like you would get a bit more congested that close together.

We comfortably played a 200 point game on a single 3x3 mat today, so not necessarily. I think you'd have to limit the deployments to prevent you from stacking units in depth.

I really fancy trying a BIG 400pt game on, say, a 9x4 board. Prob have to increase the round limit from 8 to 12ish. Lots more space to manoeuvre and have two commanders per side.

1 hour ago, Wannabe PhD said:

We comfortably played a 200 point game on a single 3x3 mat today, so not necessarily. I think you'd have to limit the deployments to prevent you from stacking units in depth.

On the other hand, I sometimes have troubles deploying all my units on a standard map. I tend to go toward lots of smaller units.

The important part, though, is that cramming more into the same amount of space lessens the amount of maneuvering you can do, making the game less fun (if it's just charge, then roll dice until killed... you can do that without dials), and really hurts most Latari builds, as well as anyone else trying a higher-mobility army, in favor of charge-and-roll-dice armies. The Uthuk have enough of an advantage as it is.

38 minutes ago, Xelto said:

On the other hand, I sometimes have troubles deploying all my units on a standard map. I tend to go toward lots of smaller units.

The important part, though, is that cramming more into the same amount of space lessens the amount of maneuvering you can do, making the game less fun (if it's just charge, then roll dice until killed... you can do that without dials), and really hurts most Latari builds, as well as anyone else trying a higher-mobility army, in favor of charge-and-roll-dice armies. The Uthuk have enough of an advantage as it is.

This is a concern which is why we aren't considering an increase in the number of terrain, we don't want the board to be too crowded

Also just for reference we will be using Latari and waiqar

4 hours ago, Evil Doctor T said:

This is a concern which is why we aren't considering an increase in the number of terrain, we don't want the board to be too crowded

Also just for reference we will be using Latari and waiqar

I would probably shoot for about an 8'x4' play area, myself, a ten turn game, and one extra piece of terrain, to adjust for the increased army size. But if you don't want to do that, go for what you were planning, and let us know how it turns out. And for me specifically, if you felt that the pieces were too cramped.

I would definitely avoid any deployment that doesn't go along the long side of the table, though. Short-table deployments are rough enough with a 200 point army.

Good timing. Our group just played a 500pt battle last week. It was on an 8x4 table with 5 players. We used a custom scenario (had 6 rune crystals on the board that gave the unit the fire rune ability when picked up, each worth 30 points) and a central pillar that gave units within range 1 Protected 3 from its aura. We used a 4 deep deployment zone the full length of the table for each side. It was 2 players running a Waiqar army (2x3 DK, 2x2 DK, Big reanimates x 2, 2x2 carrion lancers, 3x1 wraiths) vs Daqan & Latari (2 of us pooled an allied army played by 3 people) including 3x2 crossbows, 2 4x1 archers, 3x3 Spears, 4x1 Darnati warriors and a good sprinkling of heroes on both sides.

It was a lot of fun to have so much rolling in a single game. It also took a really long time (8 turns ran almost 6 hours). We normally play 350 points and have found that to be a good sweet spot for manageable longer battles for our group on weekends (for weeknights after work it’s still 200 on a side).

Our couple house rules have worked pretty well including a custom terrain deck that includes the 3d terrain in use (lots from the old Warhammer days).

1 on 1 the bigger battles might be much slower but we usually play 2+ people per side and it flows well.

200 on 6x3 definitely feels correct for tournament play, and things will have been balanced around that point, but I think 300 would play fine. Mostly I think you’d just use more of the table, leaving less room for interesting maneuvering. Certainly be cinematic.

It's interesting to think how the heeoes' special buffs change with the size of the army. For example, Kari and Ankaur bringing in a single unit from another faction means either a) you can make it a bigger unit, or b) it takes a much smaller percentage of your army, perhaps not making much difference. Similarly, with a bunch of extra points, Ardus' Host of Crows becomes less if a necessity as you can afford larger units (though there are some unique effects, such as unlocking Heraldry on Wraiths). Ravos, on the other hand, doesn't care how many units there are on the opposing side - they're all getting stun tokens. Just something to think about.

We've been talking about just running 2v2 players/factions (i.e. 400pts per side) using 3 mats (wide) with a "standardized" setup, like with deployment zones 3 deep and 3 from the sides, and 4 terrain. Maybe with a "hold the flag in the center" objective? It could get really messy, and perhaps suffer from snowball effects, but that might be cool.

My plan to run 300 point games is to do ten turns on a 8'x4' table, increasing terrain by 1 for 2-terrain deployments, or by 2 for 3-terrain deployments. For deployments that have all dangerous or all defensive terrain, you keep that. For mixed type, you add one of each or coin flip if it's normally a 1/1.

My group in San Diego pretty much plays nothing but 250 to 300 point games.

It isn't necessary to increase table size at 300 points, everything fits just fine.

At 400 points, you need either a 6x4 table or an 8x3.

At some point, I want to do a "mega battle" or "epic" game, maybe 600 to 800 points.

What I've seen so far, is that the game balance seems to hold pretty well as point values go up. And, the issue of "too many units" doesn't seem to be an issue. I've run 400 points of Latari with 17 units (on 8x3 table). Early on, those smaller units is an advantage, but by mid game, many of them have been wiped out.

There are some great tips, here

We will definitely be careful with the deployment, will be playing on 6x3 due to space restrictions when we play this week and will play 8 turns. If either of us feel the game really isn't finished at 8 we might do 9 or 10

@Wraithist and I have done 2 400 point games. Once we did 4 people each with 100 point army every person for themselves. We also did 2 v 2 each with 100 points (though I think I had like 93 and my partner had 107. We did 200 per side) and combined armies with benefits spreading across. For example Ardus allowed my Daqan ally to also use better upgrades. I don't remember what armies played with who the Ardus/Daqan was for the idea. We did this on a 6x3 table. Worked fine, the 100 v 100 v 100 v 100 was a lot of fun. At the beginning it was unverbal alliances and watching people attack their "ally" midway through the game really made for a fun experience. It was hard to pass up an easy flank charge.

On ‎9‎/‎9‎/‎2018 at 3:28 PM, Darth Matthew said:

At some point, I want to do a "mega battle" or "epic" game, maybe 600 to 800 points.

If you have the group of friends I would recommend a 200 each army free for all with 3-4 people. A ton of fun to have a free for all.

On 9/9/2018 at 1:28 PM, Darth Matthew said:

My group in San Diego pretty much plays nothing but 250 to 300 point games.

It isn't necessary to increase table size at 300 points, everything fits just fine.

At 400 points, you need either a 6x4 table or an 8x3.

At some point, I want to do a "mega battle" or "epic" game, maybe 600 to 800 points.

What I've seen so far, is that the game balance seems to hold pretty well as point values go up. And, the issue of "too many units" doesn't seem to be an issue. I've run 400 points of Latari with 17 units (on 8x3 table). Early on, those smaller units is an advantage, but by mid game, many of them have been wiped out.

I would be very interested to read a battle report from that larger format!

In my experience games like this don't work super well once the front gets past a certain size. I mean its playable and all, but the unit speeds aren't high enough between being hindered by terrain and other units. It evolves into one of 2 things

1. Players basically have their own mini battle, like just playing 2 smaller games side by side.
2. It ends up a mess of a furball in the middle, which while amusing, doesn't allow much room for tactics.

Then there are the downsides of larger games. Just a turn can take forever. Multiple players on a side ends up with lots of downtime. Lots of room for analysis paralysis.

I think the solution to bigger battles is the approach I've seen at cons sometimes. Inter-connected battles. You can have more than one force on the board, but objectives are different. Separate them by a significant terrain feature. Make the results of one battle influence the other. Say the main forces meet, but there is a scouting force on the flanks and the results of their battle determines if/when reinforcements arrive. Keep track of when significant events happen (what turn) so that you can desync the fights and nobody is left waiting for something on another area. Just hand the area a note card with 'read start of turn X' if they're behind. Bonus is you can break up to multiple tables for a really large event. A lot less alpha player/coaching issues with this arrangement as well.

We have it a go, it was a load of fun and seemed to work. It only went 30 mins longer than our usual 200 point matches and didn't feel too crowded.

Details are on our blog (it wouldn't let me add the photos direct to this post due to the image size from my phone)

Next step will be different missions and terrain to see if it still plays ok

https://themistlandswatchtower.wordpress.com/2018/09/17/large-game/

I wonder if ffg could increase the tournament point to 300. Sometimes 200 point forces seem... odd. Like literally 2 units and 2 heroes and thats it. Thhis game is begging for that more ,,cinematic" feel and 300 points is not a huge increase in points, but makes games feel more epic, other than 2 patrols meeting and fighting.

On 10/2/2018 at 2:40 PM, Warlordus said:

I wonder if ffg could increase the tournament point to 300. Sometimes 200 point forces seem... odd. Like literally 2 units and 2 heroes and thats it. Thhis game is begging for that more ,,cinematic" feel and 300 points is not a huge increase in points, but makes games feel more epic, other than 2 patrols meeting and fighting.

I feel the game is currently aimed to be balanced around 200 points, it can feel odd that you can play 3 units, but it gives you options

300 is fun but I want to play more of it before deciding either way if it's viable from a competitive standpoint

I think I’d like to try a 300 or even 400 point game with multiple phases, ie a 2-3 round vanguard deployment and battle before the main armies arrive and deploy. You’d have to figure out limits and conditions to make it balanced(no heroes, 50-100pts, must move beyond range 2 of deployment,etc), but I think it would be a lot of fun and deeper to include something like that

6 hours ago, jcshep19 said:

I think I’d like to try a 300 or even 400 point game with multiple phases, ie a 2-3 round vanguard deployment and battle before the main armies arrive and deploy. You’d have to figure out limits and conditions to make it balanced(no heroes, 50-100pts, must move beyond range 2 of deployment,etc), but I think it would be a lot of fun and deeper to include something like that

This sounds like something that could be tied into an overarching campaign or sequence of missions

Would you fix the reinforcement arrival time or leave it to a dice roll?

5+ on turn 2, 4+ on turn 3 etc. ?

It would lead to you not being sure when you can rely on your stuff arriving

6 hours ago, Evil Doctor T said:

This  s  ounds like something that could be tied into an overarching campaign or sequence of missions

Would you fix the reinforcement arrival time or leave it to a dice roll?

5+ on turn 2, 4+ on turn 3 etc. ?

 It would lead to you not being sure when you can rely on your stuff arriving  

Making it standalone integrated within a campaign or as the first stage in an epic battle would probably be the cleanest way. Limited number of points, probably on a 3x3, put terrain equidistant from either side and have points associated with it. Victor gets to choose all terrain placement on the main battlefield or something to simulate scouts choosing the best engagement area, and can recover 1-2 trays of lost vanguard units. Something along those lines.

I personally like the idea of just having it as a few turns before the actual battle, on the same board/game state, but I know this might be harder to balance. You would have to incentivize each side to actually attack and not just turtle up to draw the other Van into superior numbers. Maybe something like 3-4 rounds, 50-100 points, no heroes, side that destroyed the most points get a free turn of maneuver and actions (no attacks) before the other side can act. The side that wins the vanguard clash would be able to organize their forces better than the losing side, who may be in some disarray, so that makes sense to me.

I do like your idea of the random deployment element, that could be a lot of fun I just think you’d need some other incentive to force the Van engagement.

I never played WFB (Runewars is my first rank and file, and I’m all in!) but I have some of the written material available and so I’ve been trying to look at ways of incorporating elements of the scenario generator and various campaigns and adapt them to Runewars. It’ll take some work but I definitely think it could work great.