Warmaster One Dayer. Warhammer World 17 Nov 2012.

[pw]

On another note, our quest for a sixth player is now causing unexpected confusion! We now have three unconfirmed entrants (one of whom is in discussion with his club). All very cool really but it does make settling on a format rather awkward. I'm going to contact all concerned and ask for confirmation either way by Wednesday (after which point I think we need to know numbers so that we can finalise armies).

More soon...

[forbes]

Paul, I think due to D1 units only counting half VPs if they escape, then it is advantageous for them to fight to block the attackers and let the others escape.

I've played one battle a bit like this before - and my attackers got over-involved in a fight with a single tough unit towards the front of the defenders, which allowed the rest to escape. It does come down to distances - both from the attackers to the defenders and for the defenders to escape. Looking at this layout I think D3 would have a lot of trouble getting down the table even with little interference from the enemy.

But the carts of loot add an interesting dimension to D3. Lex, a further question on these, when you say these are worth the points of the stand that captures them (which is a cool idea) do you mean 1/3 the unit cost, or something different?

[pw]

Good spot. I missed that bit.

So, if we went with this, which side looks best for the central role? Or do we randomise it? And who is up for making the loot counters...

[Lex]

Map is OK like that. Assuming you have 3 attackers each nominate 2 adjacent zones including the short edges. Original forces on the nominated edge, reinforcements on the original or an adjecent edge. To spread the attackers put a -1 command roll when deploying in the same zone as the primary setup...??

Figure a price for teh attacker with the most "coup" which should bring their attention on the baggage with D3...

Also, you should logically have elements from all  "allies"  in the van, main aand rear... so no general will b off early...

The defending army will need to figure to get points by moving troops off piecemeal and sacrificing the baggage and  rearguard. Attacker should get points "individualy" for som ecompetition

[David Wasilewski]

I think Lex's idea is a cracking one if we have 6 players.
If we end up with 9 or 10 players though, I'd suggest a traditional 4-5 a side as we will actually need the width of the table then (it can still be a 'big game' though, rather than 5 little ones.

Basically, I'm flexible as there's cake and beer involved!

Dave

[pw]

I'm pondering the ten loot markers. I wonder if they might have some sort of time limit to be claimed to prevent a last-turn swoop when they're undefended and when being a stand down won't really impact on the effectiveness of the unit that claims them? Perhaps we could randomise this (I'm imagining that they're livestock and might wander off!). Something like:

Roll a D6 for each loot counter:
Turn 1 (can't leave)
Turn 2 (leaves on a 6)
Turn 3 (leaves on a 5+)
Turn 4 (leaves on a 4+)
Turn 5 (leaves automatically at end of turn)

[Lex]

. Looking at this layout I think D3 would have a lot of trouble getting down the table even with little interference from the enemy.

But the carts of loot add an interesting dimension to D3. Lex, a further question on these, when you say these are worth the points of the stand that captures them (which is a cool idea) do you mean 1/3 the unit cost, or something different?

All bagage counters make an "homeback" move of 20 cm towards the nearest D2 character, and can be ordered by that character IF within 20 cm of it.

that should account for moving up the rear bits.

And on the value of loot, correct assumption 1/3th of unit value (assuming  a 3 stand units). You could have some fun allowing monsters to capture loot (in which case a hydra would eg, take several cows for dinner)

[forbes]

Wagons aren't a problem. They can get based a bit better by the weekend.



Don't have any cows though.

[pw]

Now that is cool. This sounds like it'll work (and look) great.

[pw]

Some further questions:

1. Does the defender just get VPs for escaping? (to a max of 8750 if everyone got off) - I'm guessing that the defender would get kills as well?
2. Does the attacker get VPs for kills + baggage train capture (max 7500 + about 300ish)?
3. Can the defender win by breaking the attacker's army? (unlikely though this might be)?[/li][/list]


And a more general question - how does the scenario avoid high leadership attackers sending cavalry into the centre in the first turn with two orders? Six brigades of cavalry smacking into the flanks of the column sounds like a pretty nasty start point. Is the assumption that the reserves rule will make this an ill-advised tactic (it doesn't stop masses of Cav being on the table)? Terrain might help? Or, do the defenders get the first turn (which would be problematic as some might scoot across the table rather quickly with good orders).

Perhaps allowing the defenders to set up pointing in any direction might help here (giving the attacker the first turn)?

[Lex]

1 ,2 ,3    I would say yes/yes/yes, the VP are additional to kill VP.

With each attacker allowed one brigade and the general on the table they will either be ON the table edge (and thus visible, probably by Outriders OR in hiding in terrain (and needing  nasty orderdice to move out).

terrain would be advisable. And when setting up terrain assume that the defendig army WILL have been taking the safest possible route. so you should allow them to reposition some terrain to have a reasonable playing field.

Defender set up first. For the Outrider units take a number of tokens that is twice the number of units and place those  as well.
Attacker setup.
Roll Dice to determine which tokens are actualy units of outriders. If NO units are in x (= 20cm) of attackers units then attacker gets 1st turn, if Outriders spot te enemy rhen defender goes first

[frogbear]

Saying 'yes' to them might make for slightly more interaction between the three forces on each side (which sounds good but could result in delays and/or some imbalance).  What do you guys do when you play large games? If you have a tried and tested way of doing this perhaps we should do the same to avoid any surprises?

What you find is that initially people may think it a good idea to try and help an ally.

Reality is, that unless the opponent is suffering from leadership failures, all heroes and units will be dedicated to the player's role in the game. It is a rare occurance that a team mate is able to 'come to the rescue' unless they themselves have dealt with their own threat and do not leave themselves open - unless it helps to win the game with little doubt of course 

[pw]

@Frogbear - I think you're probably right, it sounds cool but in reality it likely makes little difference.

If we go with Lex's scenario (which I think we should), then I suggest we go for this:

1) Units from one army can support those from another (given that combat results effect all involved units I'd think this makes sense)
2) Magic can only be case on units in the wizard's army
3) Heroes can only join units from their own army

This keeps things as simple as possible in a scenario with plenty going on.

I'd also add this rule to the original ones:

All three generals must be killed to force an army to withdraw (just to keep everyone in the game as long as possible). BUT also: generals killed count for double victory points (to represent their significance and to maintain the general caution in their use).

In this specific scenario I'd suggest that generals may not voluntarily exit the table until all units in their army have left.

And another question: what VPs do units that have lost stands get on leaving the table?

[Lex]

Check my last note in thread. The D1 / D2 /D3 should not be 3 separate armies, but consist of units of all allies. This avoids the issue of D1 leaving "early" 

I would suggest NOT to allow mixed brigades, but if you do then the majority of troops should determine if a character is penalized when ordering them. Support should work as normal.

I suggest you use an ARMY BANNER, placed with D2 / main force, and loss of that + loss of general as a gamewinning situation

[pw]

I wouldn't suggest mixed brigades in terms of orders (orders must come from a character within the specific force), rather I'm suggesting that if units from two armies are involved in the same combat that they should be counted as supporting one another. This makes sense in terms of combat resolution but is probably quite unlikely to occur.

In terms of D1/2/3 I suggest the following addition to the deployment rules: 'no more than 2/3rds of the units (not points) in any one force may deploy in a single deployment zone. '

And an important note (that might require some tinkering). I messed up the table size in an earlier post. The table is three standard tables long so it's 4x18 rather than 4x12. The question is, do we stick with a shorter table (the other one will be very handy for storing reserves etc) or do we recalibrate the entry points (there's no reason why we couldn't use some of the third table rather than all of it). The issue here will be the speed needed to move across the board (and the time we've got to play isn't infinite).

In terms of generals - don't forget that there will be three per side. My concern is to avoid having any one player's army withdraw while the others play on (this is most likely to concern the defending side I think whose generals are likely to be rather more vulnerable than those in a standard game.

And another question:
Which of our two sides looks best suited to each role?

Chaos (2) + Dark Elves
High Elves (2) + Empire