Feedback from round 1 please

The Autumn Winter 2011 club campaign
WFB, 200 points
Starts Tuesday 5 July 2011
Forum rules
Be excellent to each other
Locked
User avatar
poi
Chief Muppet
Posts: 2416
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 11:56 pm
Location: Stoke Barehills
Contact:

Feedback from round 1 please

Post by poi » Wed Jul 06, 2011 10:25 am

What worked well, what worked less well, what changes to rules are needed?
Poi

Chilledenuff
Avatar of the vengeful Dice God
Posts: 3131
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 8:46 am
Location: Planet Les
Contact:

Re: Feedback from round 1 please

Post by Chilledenuff » Wed Jul 06, 2011 10:30 am

Needs the scenery rules to make it more interesting. Rivers and woods of doom would make people think more about terrain.
Defo more terrain required as shooty armies will be winners in this
Smile! It's not that bad!
'05: Pixie Jam Trophy winner
'07: A Small Matter of Honour Runner Up
'11: Bruce McGrath Award
'12: Bruce McGrath Award
'14: Pixie Jam Trophy Winner
'15: Bruce McGrath Award
1974-Present: Awful dice rolls

Rab
Ancient Muppet
Posts: 379
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 5:26 pm

Re: Feedback from round 1 please

Post by Rab » Wed Jul 06, 2011 7:00 pm

It needs a handicap for combat heavy armies otherwise heavily armoured combat troops will have an advantage ;)

Seriously, I think it worked well, although perhaps have a maximum unit size to stop people just bringing hordes and having a tar pit which kind of goes against the 'warband' theme.

Rule clarifications which came up last night were ( please confirm ):

Does shooting still induce panic if a 'unit' is wiped out and you are within 6" - Yes it does
If you have multiple attacks, does a multi combat do you have to direct attacks - Yes you do.
When are army break tests taken in subsequent turns - At the start of your turn.

I would perhaps like a little clarity on equipment, as I found it hard to tell which of my opponents WoC had shields or additional hand weapons, as the models all had shields ( which in a small game can make or break target choice )

Personally I found the WoC Marks for ALL of your individual core or special a little on the edge of list abuse, but maybe thats just me. perhaps if you take this then you need to keep them all in a single unit for the game???

-Rab

User avatar
poi
Chief Muppet
Posts: 2416
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 11:56 pm
Location: Stoke Barehills
Contact:

Re: Feedback from round 1 please

Post by poi » Wed Jul 06, 2011 7:40 pm

Rab wrote:It needs a handicap for combat heavy armies otherwise heavily armoured combat troops will have an advantage ;)

What do you suggest?
Seriously, I think it worked well, although perhaps have a maximum unit size to stop people just bringing hordes and having a tar pit which kind of goes against the 'warband' theme.

Glad you liked it. What size do you think would work?
Rule clarifications which came up last night were ( please confirm ):

Does shooting still induce panic if a 'unit' is wiped out and you are within 6" - Yes it does

Aye
If you have multiple attacks, does a multi combat do you have to direct attacks - Yes you do.

Aye
When are army break tests taken in subsequent turns - At the start of your turn.

Aye
I would perhaps like a little clarity on equipment, as I found it hard to tell which of my opponents WoC had shields or additional hand weapons, as the models all had shields ( which in a small game can make or break target choice )

WYSIWYG If all models have shields, then that's how they should be played.
Personally I found the WoC Marks for ALL of your individual core or special a little on the edge of list abuse, but maybe thats just me. perhaps if you take this then you need to keep them all in a single unit for the game???

Not convinced this is a big issue, but I'm open to persuasion. What do others think?
Poi

Rab
Ancient Muppet
Posts: 379
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 5:26 pm

Re: Feedback from round 1 please

Post by Rab » Wed Jul 06, 2011 7:51 pm

I was being facetious about the Heavy Armoured warrior handicap…in retort to Les' statement that archers have an advantage ( which I think my games last night showed that archers are only so effective against heavily armoured WoCs! and get minced in combat anyway)

I don't know about the unit size..it just feels wrong bringing 60 night goblins as a single unit to a warband game. It's a balance between not punishing armies that are designed to play that way though ( altough the horde armies do have a wide selection of other core and special to choose from ). I will leave it up to the luminaries to decide.

Someone mentioned all single model units having skirmish rule ( Sorry, I don't know the chap's name ), which I think I disagreed with as some of the armies pay for that rule in the points of their models (which also confers -1 to hit with missile and march and shoot as well as free reform ).

How about a compromise where all single model units get free reform but NOT the other skirmish rules as that seems to make 'logical' sense?

User avatar
poi
Chief Muppet
Posts: 2416
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 11:56 pm
Location: Stoke Barehills
Contact:

Re: Feedback from round 1 please

Post by poi » Wed Jul 06, 2011 7:55 pm

Chilledenuff wrote:Needs the scenery rules to make it more interesting. Rivers and woods of doom would make people think more about terrain.
Defo more terrain required as shooty armies will be winners in this

Saw little evidence of dominance from shooty armies, but the terrain suggestion is valid in any event, and would nerf my big unit without any need for a rule.
Poi

Chilledenuff
Avatar of the vengeful Dice God
Posts: 3131
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 8:46 am
Location: Planet Les
Contact:

Re: Feedback from round 1 please

Post by Chilledenuff » Wed Jul 06, 2011 7:56 pm

I agree on the marks issue, should be 1 mark per unit type not 1 mark per slot (ie special or core), but going on last nights results I don't thnk it's a huge issue. Hordes don't worry me per se, it fits with skaven. I think's its Skaven Slayer where Thanquil thinks his 500 strong army is bordering on being tiny.. it also fits with other horde armies fluff wise.

I thought the campaign was wysiwig :think:

The big problem i think the campaign may face is that in such a game heavy campaign with no effects from one round to the next it might become stagnant.. you may need to introduce the odd special scenario, such as objectives in some games, just to keep it fresh
Smile! It's not that bad!
'05: Pixie Jam Trophy winner
'07: A Small Matter of Honour Runner Up
'11: Bruce McGrath Award
'12: Bruce McGrath Award
'14: Pixie Jam Trophy Winner
'15: Bruce McGrath Award
1974-Present: Awful dice rolls

User avatar
poi
Chief Muppet
Posts: 2416
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 11:56 pm
Location: Stoke Barehills
Contact:

Re: Feedback from round 1 please

Post by poi » Wed Jul 06, 2011 8:06 pm

That's the plan. Just wanted the first week to be quick and simple to get folks playing.
Poi

User avatar
Rendorin
Ancient Muppet
Posts: 124
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 10:39 pm

Re: Feedback from round 1 please

Post by Rendorin » Wed Jul 06, 2011 8:44 pm

Concur with all of the above was a good start with quick easy games, in particular:
1. 18 inch distance between forces needs to be reiterated as it wasn't used in all my games and possibly in a few others. This would give shooty armies at least 2 rounds of shooting before being hit.
2. I think balance is right between forces seen last night as most combat armies were smaller than the shooty armies which means on law of averages shooty armies should get a couple of kills before being engaged. The close combat armies I saw were very much 1 trick ponies, whereas shooty armies tried to strike a balance a hold some CC element.
3. Hordes at 200 points not really an issue as they never too big and those that do exist are usually not that good in CC (unless you happen to be my Chaos Knights :oops: )
4. I agree that table-top should possibly be set by gamesmaster and as well as drawing player should also draw table and will be interesting to see the side games later in the campaign.

User avatar
poi
Chief Muppet
Posts: 2416
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 11:56 pm
Location: Stoke Barehills
Contact:

Re: Feedback from round 1 please

Post by poi » Wed Jul 13, 2011 10:44 am

Rab wrote:How about a compromise where all single model units get free reform but NOT the other skirmish rules as that seems to make 'logical' sense?

I like this as a compromise. I'll add it to the rules thread.
Poi

Locked

Return to “Warbands 2011”