Tuesday, January 12, 2016

Double Trouble Update - Army Selection, Scoring, Deployments and Tactical Objectives

Here's the promised update to the DT rules pack. I've already incorporated these changes into the DT page but here's a bit more detail about some of the decisions.

Army Selection
I've decided that each army should be a single detachment or formation only. This means that detachments that require more than one formation will not be permitted. This is for a couple of reasons:.firstly because not all armies have access to this method of bypassing the single detachment restriction but also because there'd only be Tau and Necrons that could field detachments of this type with the restriction that a maximum of 2 of each unit can be taken. For example, the Gladius Strike Force requires three tactical squads in the Demi Company.

There were some questions about AM Infantry Platoons which struggle with the max of two of each unit thing. My proposed solution is that you may take two Platoons but each may only include three infantry squads (allowing six per Force). The other components of the Platoon would be excluded from the no more than two of a unit rule. I really want to hear feedback from AM players to know whether this seems fair or not. Likewise from non-AM players too! I think it's a tricky one to get right because I don't want to penalise a single faction too much.

Let's remember that we're only talking about 750 pts so I don't think any of these restrictions are excessive. I'll post again soon with some example armies for each faction that I think are balanced. There's still plenty of scope for variety and with the inclusion of FW stuff there'll hopefully be some interesting stuff in play.

Scoring
It seems there was some (quite understandable) confusion regarding the scoring. Since the pairs are random in each round it didn't seem right to offer a prize for the doubles team with the best score. That means the prizes will be individual. In each game both players in a doubles team will receive the same score. Here's an example of how it'll work (in an 80's maths textbook style):

Arnold and Barry are paired together in the first game and play against Cyril and Darren. Arnold and Barry win the game 30-12 with a BP score of 1500-750. Arnold and Barry both receive 30 VPs and 1500 BPs giving them both a total of 60 tournament points (BPs are converted). They then go onto their next games. Arnold is now paired with Eric who scored 25 points in his first game. They lose their game together 8-20 and 1250-1400. That gives Arnold a total of 93 points (60 from his first game + 8 + 25). 

It may seem complicated but since Excel will be keeping track all day and there's no Swiss pairings to figure out it will actually be very simple. You still need to try to win your games to win the tournament and you aren't likely to do that without working with your partners throughout the day.

Deployments
I've added the deployment types to the DT page. The first game is simple Dawn of War to break everyone in gently. After that it gets a little more interesting but hopefully it all makes sense and will work in practice. I wanted to avoid Hammer and Anvil as the venue doesn't really lend itself to it and I think it favours certain armies too much. Again, I'd love to hear what you guys think.

Tactical Objectives
Here's a list of the Double Trouble custom tactical objectives that will be used in every mission:


I wanted to increase the deck from Blog Wars' 18 cards to 24. This is because DT will use them in every game not just one so there should be more variety this way. I didn't want to add any more than this because I wanted people to feel like they could get a grasp of what was in the deck so they could play their games with a vague idea of what might come out next and plan accordingly. I've renamed a lot of the cards to minimise any copyright complaints but I'm sure you can tell that some are based on the standard GW missions.

The other big thing was to try to encourage people to play together rather than it being a 4-way scrap. The objective missions therefore require a specific numbered objective to be claimed by one Force for 1 VP or, if the other Force can also control any other objective you get 2 VPs. I hope that you can all appreciate what I'm aiming for here at least.

Conclusion
Right then, hit me with your thoughts, suggestions, complaints and errr...praise? I'm keen that DT should be the same as BW in the sense that the playerbase has a big say in how it works. I'm conscious that a lot of this seems complicated but hopefully when you start testing things out you'll see that it's actually pretty straightforward. Nothing is totally set in stone, if people think there's something especially daft up there then let me know and I may take it out or change it.

Speaking of which, I may tweak the odd thing here and there once Matt and I get chance to playtest some of this stuff ourselves. It's difficult to sit there and come up with these things and consider every possible scenario and how the rules will affect particular armies. As I've said before, I intend to write some army lists up on the blog to give people an idea of the kind of thing that's possible within the army selection framework. In the meantime, please please please comment or email your feedback. Thanks in advance!

6 comments:

  1. I am really looking forward to this. As soon as payday rolls around I'll be grabbing my ticket.

    I personally think the army selection criteria seem fair enough. It discounts the formation I *was* going to bring, but I have many other options so I'm over it. I especually like the bonus VPs for workinh as a team. Praises be heaped upon you!

    ReplyDelete
  2. I do like the tactical objective deck, the way it rewards working together... If this was a bring a buddy format, I'd be in for sure. I'm still not struck on the random pairings, hence why I'm still on the fence, but watching with interest how it develops...

    ReplyDelete
  3. To be fair, I'm on the fence too about the random pairings. Would probably already have a ticket by now if it was bring a buddy format.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hey Alex. Good ideas as always. My thoughts on the AM thingy are that I think maxing the platoons and 3 infantry squads per platoon makes sense. That way you can't have a 50 man unit, but you can still have a couple of 30 man units. I like the lack of a cap on the other elements, it means you've got a bit of a tool box to work with.

    The single detachment thing - am I right in thinking that I could just select the allies force org chart and use that?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Oh, and on random pairings - sure it's a bit more variable, but I think that adds to the charm, and forces you to meet people! So I'm broadly in favour of it-
    A major benefit is that you don't need and partner, so if you can't get one or yours drops out you're not screwed.

    Can I clarify- will it be totally random pairings 2nd & 3rd round, or will it be do on total vps up to that point?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with you there. I hardly know anyone but I am looking forward to random pairings. If nothing else there will be some weird and wonderful allied forces!

      Delete

LinkWithin

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...