ScapeCon II Events

[S1R_ART0R1US]

Question for General Wars - can both the 350 and 140 portions be from the same general? If so I'm assuming no overlap, so for instance Mimring would have to be in the 350 portion fully, not just the remaining 10 from using 140.

[OEAO]

Originally Posted by S1R_ART0R1US

Question for General Wars - can both the 350 and 140 portions be from the same general? If so I'm assuming no overlap, so for instance Mimring would have to be in the 350 portion fully, not just the remaining 10 from using 140.

It has to be “140 points of any one other general,” so you can’t have both the 350 and 140 from the same general.

[caps]

Be the first player to reach 6 Victory Points. If both players end a round tied, then play another round (and continue until the tie is broken). Each map will have two control points (towards the center of the map). At the end of the round, if you have more army cards within two spaces of a control point than your opponent, then you score Victory Points equal to the round number. Repeat this process for the other control point.

I assume a lot of thought was put into this format. I'm looking at doing something similar so I have questions. I have guesses at the answers but would like to hear from the event organizers:
- why based on army cards near the control point instead of number of figures?
- why not only count unengaged figures?
- why within 2 spaces instead of only adjacent?
- why the increasing point value each round instead of a static point cost?

I was thinking of something simpler:
- you score one point at the end of the round if you have a figure on the control point unless that figure is engaged

But I am guessing there are good reasons for the extra complexity in a competitive version of the event?

[OEAO]

Originally Posted by caps

I assume a lot of thought was put into this format. I'm looking at doing something similar so I have questions. I have guesses at the answers but would like to hear from the event organizers:
- why based on army cards near the control point instead of number of figures?
- why not only count unengaged figures?
- why within 2 spaces instead of only adjacent?
- why the increasing point value each round instead of a static point cost?

I was thinking of something simpler:
- you score one point at the end of the round if you have a figure on the control point unless that figure is engaged

But I am guessing there are good reasons for the extra complexity in a competitive version of the event?

I think your version is basically the online Control Zones, right? I think they’re very different formats.

Control Points is meant to mimic how objectives usually work in other games (like Legion for example). A radius (as opposed to a single point) allows for much more interesting counterplay and positioning (and that would be the same answer for a 1 vs 2 space radius). However, you wouldn’t want someone to be able to jam 8 knights within that radius to count for it, hence the number of different army cards. And you definitely wouldn’t want unengaged only at that point.

Increasing point values both gives certain armies a little more time to setup, and diminishes the effectiveness of a pure rush strategy. We might explore increasing the total points needed to win in the future (maybe 7 instead of 6, for example), but scaling points are really good for this format.

Essentially, as soon as you decide it should be based on a radius, just about everything else naturally follows. I’m not saying that the online format is bad- it’s just quite a bit different.

[caps]

Originally Posted by OEAO

I think your version is basically the online Control Zones, right? I think they’re very different formats.

Control Points is meant to mimic how objectives usually work in other games (like Legion for example). A radius (as opposed to a single point) allows for much more interesting counterplay and positioning (and that would be the same answer for a 1 vs 2 space radius). However, you wouldn’t want someone to be able to jam 8 knights within that radius to count for it, hence the number of different army cards. And you definitely wouldn’t want unengaged only at that point.

Increasing point values both gives certain armies a little more time to setup, and diminishes the effectiveness of a pure rush strategy. We might explore increasing the total points needed to win in the future (maybe 7 instead of 6, for example), but scaling points are really good for this format.

Essentially, as soon as you decide it should be based on a radius, just about everything else naturally follows. I’m not saying that the online format is bad- it’s just quite a bit different.

Thanks for the answer.

I'm trying out a format that has multiple scoring dimensions and I'm not sure which control zone is the best baseline for it. I see the OHS format is very similar to what I described.

I'll try this format with some friends on Thursday night.

[OEAO]

Originally Posted by caps

Thanks for the answer.

I'm trying out a format that has multiple scoring dimensions and I'm not sure which control zone is the best baseline for it. I see the OHS format is very similar to what I described.

I'll try this format with some friends on Thursday night.

Without knowing the specifics of your format, I’d say try both and see which fits better!

[caps]

Originally Posted by caps

Thanks for the answer.

I'm trying out a format that has multiple scoring dimensions and I'm not sure which control zone is the best baseline for it. I see the OHS format is very similar to what I described.

I'll try this format with some friends on Thursday night.

Any tips on how to pick control point locations @OEAO ? I see that you didn't just go with "wherever the glyphs are."

[OEAO]

Originally Posted by caps

Any tips on how to pick control point locations @OEAO ? I see that you didn't just go with "wherever the glyphs are."

Shot you a message. The gist is “generally center without having the two control points’ radius’ overlapping each other or the power glyphs.”

[caps]

Another question about this format: I'm curious if you saw multi-common hero armies like wyrmlings or Kurrock and elementals really dominate with how they're able to swarm army cards into the control point areas.

[GucciiBoost]

Originally Posted by caps

Another question about this format: I'm curious if you saw multi-common hero armies like wyrmlings or Kurrock and elementals really dominate with how they're able to swarm army cards into the control point areas.

So I won control points with Kurrok, FE x8, Marcu… but my games against S1R_ART0R1US with Major X17, Theracus, Blasts x2, Glads x2 and Earl of Sandwich with Brunak, Nerak, Marcu, Ornak, Heavies x2 were both very close and could have gone either way.

Against S1R_ART0R1US I was down 1-5 and won both control points in round 3 for a 7-5 win

I think Kurrok and the FE are definitely very good but there are other viable armies

[S1R_ART0R1US]

Originally Posted by caps

Another question about this format: I'm curious if you saw multi-common hero armies like wyrmlings or Kurrock and elementals really dominate with how they're able to swarm army cards into the control point areas.

Here's what I posted in the ScapeCon feedback. Largely I don't see the concern for multi-common hero armies, but like normal, things that bond are strong.

I don't think that competitively Firestorm is an issue. And while 4 of the 13 armies had FEs in them (with no other squad showing up in more than 2), the top 4 armies were all different (Firestorm, Gruts, GSW+Nilf, and Glad/Blast). I think that's a decent variety, and I don't think a rules change is needed. The mixed elemental armies went 2-2, 2-2, and 1-3 which is definitely not overpowering.

[caps]

Thanks folks!