Bay Area Brawl - NHSD '13

[cmgames]

Originally Posted by RoninValentina

[...]that the way uncommons can utilize their markers, leaving them in place, and die only to return with Fight On that it could be possible to reacquire spent markers fast than a unique hero could do so. [...]

Rather than think of this as a problem to make a rule for, I think this should be simply a consideration in army design. Design your army with the understanding that Uncommons might have a slight edge on Uniques in some rare cases.

Far simpler to just say "respawn with not more than the original number of markers" and leave it at that. Simple, comprehensible, and straightforward.

~Z

Oh, and 10 spaces is a problem for my
Hero Conquest Army #5
6 x Iron Golem

[RoninValentina]

I am glad to learn 10 spaces is a problem for you.

Edit: Out of curiousity, do you actually own 6 Iron golems?

Double edit: Man, 6 Wyverns would be interesting.

[cmgames]

Originally Posted by RoninValentina

I am glad to learn 10 spaces is a problem for you.

Gee, thanks for the sympathy.

Originally Posted by RoninValentina

Edit: Out of curiousity, do you actually own 6 Iron golems?

Yep. CoolStuff, Inc had a sale, I had a notion.

Originally Posted by RoninValentina

Double edit: Man, 6 Wyverns would be interesting.

Decidedly mobile! But also 12 spaces. And no, I don't have 6 Wyverns.

~Z

Hero Conquest Army # 8
3 x Iron Golem
3 x Wyvern

[RoninValentina]

Hah!

Well, what I really meant was that 10 hexes can indeed be a limiting factor. Which means it's a useful number.

And yes, I know 6 Wyverns is too many...

[personwholives]

Originally Posted by cmgames

Rather than think of this as a problem to make a rule for, I think this should be simply a consideration in army design. Design your army with the understanding that Uncommons might have a slight edge on Uniques in some rare cases.

Far simpler to just say "respawn with not more than the original number of markers" and leave it at that. Simple, comprehensible, and straightforward.

~Z

Even if you can make the argument that this allows you to spend and regenerate markers faster than a unique could, I don't think that's enough to justify the concern. Mainly because it is such an extreme corner case, but also because we're talking about 10 hexes. Most people will probably have at least one 2 hex figure - some people may even have 5 2 hex figures. But I think it's reasonable to estimate between 5 and 8 figures per army. So then, if you bring 4 werewolf lords, you can't even spend all of their counters at the same time, not without dropping a few enemy figures and re-infecting them.

Just for curiosity, maybe we should make a list of all the figures that are legal for this format that use markers, and see what the possible effects of this ruling are, either way. I can think of a couple off the top of my head:

Markers:
Brimstone (Kind of irrelevant, removed at death - starts with 0)
Morsbane
Werewolf Lord

OPG:
Atlaga (Bolt of the witherwood)
Erevan Sunshadow (Fey Step)

Anybody I missed? I think, if I didn't miss anybody, we're having a big debate over a very small problem. Either solution is probably fine, but I would take the one that will be easiest - meaning not having to mark a bunch of markers with colored dots to match the figures. It's a very small difference between morsbane and the werewolf lord. As to OPG powers recharging: Atlaga's power is a single kill - if the enemy comes back, his bolt should probably come back. Erevan's power is a single move. I don't think it'll hurt anything to let him use it again when he comes back.

Ronin: any thoughts on the tiebreaker I proposed earlier?

[personwholives]

A playtest report for you:
I played a few games on crevasse. 15 points seemed a reasonable goal, especially if you get one bonus for occupying all the glyphs in a round. The format seemed pretty workable, though the sample size is admittedly small. Also, tactical movement played a huge part in the early game, much smaller part in the late game, except that it allowed you to secure a glyph after killing the figure on it, if you had someone else close enough to make it there.

[cmgames]

Playtest report:

This evening we played three games on two maps: two on Vigilant, one on Incendium.

We played 50-60 minutes ending at the end of the round that was in progress at the 50-minute mark.

The first map, Vigilant, has three glyphs and we awarded an extra point for occupying all three glyphs. We played the same two armies on this map, swapping control for the second bout. The first bout lasted four rounds and the final score was 11 to 1. The second bout lasted five rounds and the final score was 10 to 4. The speediest army won handily because it got to the glyphs first and the slower army spent all of its time trying to dislodge the glyph-holders. The slower army was also hampered in that one of the glyphs could only be held by a 1-hex figure - and it had no 1-hex figures.

We took the best army from that round and pitted it against another speedy army for the final bout of the evening on Incendium - a two-glyph map. We would have awarded an extra point for occupying both glyphs, but that never happened. This bout also went five rounds and ended with a final score of 5 to 4. The winner got ahead in the first round (1 - 0) and the remaining rounds all went 1 - 1. It was really close on the last two rounds, though. With just a touch of luck, it would have swung the other way and then the last two rounds might have ended 3 - 0 for a final score of 8 -3.

Impressions:
If the goal is to be a set number of points, I think all the maps need to have the same number of Goals. A better idea might be a set number of rounds (five seemed about right - the four-round game ended at 51 minutes and it was our first so we played a little slower getting a feel for the format). I also felt the bonus for controlling all the Goals was like rubbing salt into a wound - you're already getting zero points for the round and your opponent gets a bonus? It seems a mite unfair and too swingy.

We may get some more testing in tomorrow - I'll let you know.

~Z

[personwholives]

Ziggy, my games on Crevasse got to 15-6, 17-2, and 15-2, usually in about 40-45 minutes.

As to the center glyph on Vigilant, I'd agree that's not ideal. All the glyphs probably need to be occupiable by a double hex figure. As to the 2 glyph vs 3 glyph maps - perhaps there should just be different targets for different numbers of glyphs available.

[RoninValentina]

Hey gents. I've been following your recent comments and really appreciate the feedback, I just haven't had much time respond this weekend. I'll try to have a proper response up a bit later.

[Roda]

Sup guys,

It's been almost exactly three years since the last tournament I attended, and I plan on joining Zyx again for this year's NHSD Brawl. I look forward to seeing everyone again.

[cmgames]

Playtest report #2:

This evening we played one game on Vigilant with a Wyvern army and a Werewolf Lord army.

We played 5 rounds in 70 minutes. The final score was 7 to 6. The Werewolf Lord army won because Cyprien was turned into a were-vampire that would not die and the WL controller used him to kill his own lover (repeatedly).

I have no idea how pwl got to 15 points in 45 minutes. I can only imagine that happening by playing a good army against a terrible army and having one army basically sit on all the glyphs for at least 3 rounds with no decisions to make. It's the decisions that take the time, really.

A few questions came up that need rulings:

1. If OM1 is on Ornak and he takes turns with two other heroes, who can and can't be moved with the Tactical Movement (TM)? We ruled that no one can be moved with TM because the turn was not taken with Ornak. Is this correct? Or can Ornak or one of the heroes that took turns take the TM move? Or only a different hero altogether?

2. Can a Wyvern use Talon Grab on anybody (friendly or not) during the TM move?


~Z

[RoninValentina]

Interesting disparity of point differences. On one hand, I've been wondering if something needs to be done to lower the potential of lopsided matches, (As I'd love for matches to remain close) but I given the sample size so far I don't know if a solution is really necessary.

Some ideas to consider, if we think something needs to be adjusted.

- Removing the bonus point for controlling each glyph. (I think cmgames is right on this.)
- Instead of gaining a point per glyph controlled, only awarding one point to the team that controls the majority of the Conquest Glyphs. (It's an idea to consider, not one in which I am a big fan.)
- Adjusting Fight On so the player with fewer Conquest Points can select up to two Heroes per round, instead of being limited to one. (Does this change address the issue of playing 'Catch-up?')

Answers:

Interesting point on Ornak. I'm gonna go with the language on this one. Ornak doesn't take a turn, other figures do. Tactical Movement is worded so that "After revealing an order marker on this card and completing a turn with this hero..." which Ornak does not do. So Ornak could not utilize Tactical Movement unless he takes the turn in lieu of using Red Flag of Fury.

For Talon Grab, I am going to add the word "could" to the description of Tactical Movement so it reads, "...but any movement power that could damage or actively impair your opponent during movement, such as Trample Stomp, may not be used during a move granted by Tactical Movement." As Talon Grab through forced movement may very much damage or impair a figure belonging to an opponent, it will not be useable during a move granted by Tactical Movement, not even to effectively carry one of your own figures.

For your Sudden Death suggestion, Person, I do like it. I admit I worry slightly that it's adding even more to a format that has a lot of custom elements to it, but it's not that complicated. As an aside, I will note that I think it will be ideal to have all the maps have 3 Conquest Glyphs, rather than a varied amount. I selected a map with two Glyphs however to 1) try it out and 2) because finding maps where a central glyph is possible is a bit more difficult. Lastly, I agree that Glyphs should always be accessible by a double based figure, although that doesn't some figures like Nilfheim or some other wide-sculpted figure must necessarily fit.

One other thing. Carny, would you ask Ronin Games if they would be willing to host us for Oct. 19th? It'd be awesome if we could have a little more space that day, as I'm hoping our attendence will be a little higher.