|
|
Post by heisen on Jul 20, 2022 18:47:40 GMT
[English]: My gaming club and myself have been working on a series of rules to enhance the competitive side of the game. Starting from the competitive rules provided by OPR we aimed to created what we can call a tournament pack. It includes new main missions, new side missions, terrain placement rules and objectives holding rules. Testing has been quite good so far and we are looking forward to organize the first Age of Fantasy tournament at our local hobby store. [Spanish]: En mi grupo de juego hemos estado trabajando en un suplemento especialmente orientado al juego competitivo. Partiendo de las reglas de juego competitivo ofrecidas por OPR hemos creado un dossier de reglas para torneo, que incluye nuevas misiones principales, sistema de misiones secundarias, reglas para la disposición de escenografía y nuevas reglas para el control de objetivos. Esperamos vuestro feedback. Reglas juego competitivo AoF.
Edit: English translation by Aevox23 |
|
|
|
Post by baradaeg on Jul 20, 2022 20:28:34 GMT
I like this.
But the maps should be mirrored for a more competitive approach, so no side has an advantage over the other due to terrain placement in combination with deployment zones and objective placement.
Some of the maps look really unbalanced and favoring one side over the other.
Besides that, I can't read spanish, so I will have to take the slow approach and translate it first before I can give further feedback.
But what I can see and understand looks promising.
|
|
|
|
Post by heisen on Jul 21, 2022 12:12:13 GMT
I like this. But the maps should be mirrored for a more competitive approach, so no side has an advantage over the other due to terrain placement in combination with deployment zones and objective placement. Some of the maps look really unbalanced and favoring one side over the other. Besides that, I can't read spanish, so I will have to take the slow approach and translate it first before I can give further feedback. But what I can see and understand looks promising. Thank you for your answer. Terrain templates have not been an issue at our local testing so far, but I agree that in a tournament enviroment changes may be needed for better competitive symmetry. On the other hand, if you read thought the new missions, at the beggining of the game both players roll to see who is atacker/defender. Atacker will take first activation at first round, while defender will be able to chose deployment zone. Because of that, we believe that asymmetric terrain placement adds another layer of tactical choice. If the entire table is symmetric there is no real advantage/disadvantage for being the defender player. I hope you could test the rules on you own. Feel free to question anything related with translation and the rules themselves. |
|
|
|
Post by baradaeg on Jul 21, 2022 12:33:51 GMT
I had planned to translate it at the weekend, so I could only comment what I could take in visually, like a first look and what I saw had a nice formatting and visual presentation.
The big feedback block will only come at the weekend when I had the time to translate it and have a proper read of it.
But what I saw I liked.
|
|
|
|
Post by aevox23 on Jul 21, 2022 23:47:53 GMT
As a Spanish speaker, I took it upon myself to form an English translation by first passing it through Google Translate then brushing up some of the irregularities formed by the change, as well as added conversions from metric to ft/inches. I think the supplement is very good and I like the line of sight clarifications you included. Nice work! Here is a link to the English Version: drive.google.com/file/d/1ubLg6GLEAi3FRI-aHBpK9zNbz7KCoqSf/view?usp=sharingMy main concern so far is that 6-round games at 2500 points sounds a bit too long for a tournament, especially considering the additional book-keeping from scoring VP's at the end of each round. How many games would the tournament consist of? |
|
|
|
Post by baradaeg on Jul 22, 2022 11:07:38 GMT
Thanks to aevox23's translation I could take a look a bit earlier than planned.
So here my full feedback, chapter for chapter.
1) and 2) Good job copying over the competitive rules and filing in the variables with fixed values for the defined point value of the games.
3) Duration may be a bit long for an organised tournament. And the objective holding rules have some problems, since they look like their purpose is to make squads prioritized over big single model units, they have a problem of inconsistency. For example a unit of artillery (Tough(3)) can hold an objective against a Cyclops (Tough(12)) but not against a Chariot (Tough(6)), the same for a squad of 5 models without Tough. A better solution would be to either go for total Tough or model count.
4) If you have to stay clear 12" from the enemy's deployment zone, this should be reflected in the maps for the missions.
5) It is good to define the rules for all the terrain pieces, but missing out on dimensions may be a disadvantage. And I already mentioned my opinion about the asymmetrical maps.
6) The Battle Tactics are a nice idea for tie breakers and keeps the battle moving.
7) Very good to take the FAQ and update it to the most current ruling.
|
|
|
|
Post by heisen on Jul 22, 2022 13:03:53 GMT
As a Spanish speaker, I took it upon myself to form an English translation by first passing it through Google Translate then brushing up some of the irregularities formed by the change, as well as added conversions from metric to ft/inches. I think the supplement is very good and I like the line of sight clarifications you included. Nice work! Here is a link to the English Version: drive.google.com/file/d/1ubLg6GLEAi3FRI-aHBpK9zNbz7KCoqSf/view?usp=sharingMy main concern so far is that 6-round games at 2500 points sounds a bit too long for a tournament, especially considering the additional book-keeping from scoring VP's at the end of each round. How many games would the tournament consist of? At our group we are playing 2.5K games in about 2h. Once you know your rollings and that the game runs quick and smooth, even with the added VP. Tournament is still a mid-term thing, but we believe a 3 games format (2 in the morning and 1 after lunch) is the way to go. I have posted your english translation in the OP, thank you so much for it. |
|
|
|
Post by heisen on Jul 22, 2022 13:22:20 GMT
Thanks to aevox23's translation I could take a look a bit earlier than planned. So here my full feedback, chapter for chapter. 1) and 2) Good job copying over the competitive rules and filing in the variables with fixed values for the defined point value of the games. 3) Duration may be a bit long for an organised tournament. And the objective holding rules have some problems, since they look like their purpose is to make squads prioritized over big single model units, they have a problem of inconsistency. For example a unit of artillery (Tough(3)) can hold an objective against a Cyclops (Tough(12)) but not against a Chariot (Tough(6)), the same for a squad of 5 models without Tough. A better solution would be to either go for total Tough or model count. 4) If you have to stay clear 12" from the enemy's deployment zone, this should be reflected in the maps for the missions. 5) It is good to define the rules for all the terrain pieces, but missing out on dimensions may be a disadvantage. And I already mentioned my opinion about the asymmetrical maps. 6) The Battle Tactics are a nice idea for tie breakers and keeps the battle moving. 7) Very good to take the FAQ and update it to the most current ruling. We are playing 2.5K games in about 2h and we believe that would be a good timer for a 3 games tournament format. Reducing the game length by 1 round (for a total of 5) may be the right path if we see that 2h is too much for an event. Objective holding rules make monsters and big guys tools of aggression indeed. That was made on purpose since we did not want players to sit their biggest boys at one objective the entire game in order to always hold it. I maye have not read your post right (sometimes my english can be a bit clunky) but a unit of 5 models without Tough does not control objective over a Chariot of Tough (6). Rules state that you have to add the Tough (x) value of all your miniatures at the objective, but if there is a miniature with Tough value more than 6 it does not count to the total value of tough if there are miniatures of the opposite player with tough value of (6) or less. Than means that monsters can still hold objectives on their own and against single miniatures with tough (>=7), but they will not against infantry units and mid-tier monsters. As I said, we want monsters to be a tool of agressión. In the example you have made a unit of 5 miniatures without tough would add a total of 5T. The chariot, even being a single model, has tough (6), and so its total tough will be 6. Chariot would hold the objective. If the infantry unit is made of 6 models, none of the players would control the objective. If the infantry unit is made of 7 models that players would control the objective since its total tough is higher than the chariot tough. In the same way the chariot tough (6) would control the objective over a war machine tough (3). |
|
|
|
Post by baradaeg on Jul 22, 2022 14:08:18 GMT
Thanks to aevox23's translation I could take a look a bit earlier than planned. So here my full feedback, chapter for chapter. 1) and 2) Good job copying over the competitive rules and filing in the variables with fixed values for the defined point value of the games. 3) Duration may be a bit long for an organised tournament. And the objective holding rules have some problems, since they look like their purpose is to make squads prioritized over big single model units, they have a problem of inconsistency. For example a unit of artillery (Tough(3)) can hold an objective against a Cyclops (Tough(12)) but not against a Chariot (Tough(6)), the same for a squad of 5 models without Tough. A better solution would be to either go for total Tough or model count. 4) If you have to stay clear 12" from the enemy's deployment zone, this should be reflected in the maps for the missions. 5) It is good to define the rules for all the terrain pieces, but missing out on dimensions may be a disadvantage. And I already mentioned my opinion about the asymmetrical maps. 6) The Battle Tactics are a nice idea for tie breakers and keeps the battle moving. 7) Very good to take the FAQ and update it to the most current ruling. We are playing 2.5K games in about 2h and we believe that would be a good timer for a 3 games tournament format. Reducing the game length by 1 round (for a total of 5) may be the right path if we see that 2h is too much for an event. Objective holding rules make monsters and big guys tools of aggression indeed. That was made on purpose since we did not want players to sit their biggest boys at one objective the entire game in order to always hold it. I maye have not read your post right (sometimes my english can be a bit clunky) but a unit of 5 models without Tough does not control objective over a Chariot of Tough (6). Rules state that you have to add the Tough (x) value of all your miniatures at the objective, but if there is a miniature with Tough value more than 6 it does not count to the total value of tough if there are miniatures of the opposite player with tough value of (6) or less. Than means that monsters can still hold objectives on their own and against single miniatures with tough (>=7), but they will not against infantry units and mid-tier monsters. As I said, we want monsters to be a tool of agressión. In the example you have made a unit of 5 miniatures without tough would add a total of 5T. The chariot, even being a single model, has tough (6), and so its total tough will be 6. Chariot would hold the objective. If the infantry unit is made of 6 models, none of the players would control the objective. If the infantry unit is made of 7 models that players would control the objective since its total tough is higher than the chariot tough. In the same way the chariot tough (6) would control the objective over a war machine tough (3). It wasn't the 5 models against the chariot but against the Tough(12) model. I also may misread it but your objectives are no longer controlled if no unit is on them, aren't they? If so that is a huge change from the original rules and forces unit to stay at objectives to score. If you keep the original rules of objectives stay under control even if units move away from them than you don't need the limitation for big units because now they have an incentive to go into the enemies back lines and take that objectives. |
|
|
|
Post by heisen on Jul 22, 2022 15:19:45 GMT
3) We are playing 2.5K games in about 2h and we believe that would be a good timer for a 3 games tournament format. Reducing the game length by 1 round (for a total of 5) may be the right path if we see that 2h is too much for an event. Objective holding rules make monsters and big guys tools of aggression indeed. That was made on purpose since we did not want players to sit their biggest boys at one objective the entire game in order to always hold it. I maye have not read your post right (sometimes my english can be a bit clunky) but a unit of 5 models without Tough does not control objective over a Chariot of Tough (6). Rules state that you have to add the Tough (x) value of all your miniatures at the objective, but if there is a miniature with Tough value more than 6 it does not count to the total value of tough if there are miniatures of the opposite player with tough value of (6) or less. Than means that monsters can still hold objectives on their own and against single miniatures with tough (>=7), but they will not against infantry units and mid-tier monsters. As I said, we want monsters to be a tool of agressión. In the example you have made a unit of 5 miniatures without tough would add a total of 5T. The chariot, even being a single model, has tough (6), and so its total tough will be 6. Chariot would hold the objective. If the infantry unit is made of 6 models, none of the players would control the objective. If the infantry unit is made of 7 models that players would control the objective since its total tough is higher than the chariot tough. In the same way the chariot tough (6) would control the objective over a war machine tough (3). It wasn't the 5 models against the chariot but against the Tough(12) model. I also may misread it but your objectives are no longer controlled if no unit is on them, aren't they? If so that is a huge change from the original rules and forces unit to stay at objectives to score. If you keep the original rules of objectives stay under control even if units move away from them than you don't need the limitation for big units because now they have an incentive to go into the enemies back lines and take that objectives. Exactly, except for two specific missions in order to get VP at the end of the round you must control the objective by having units on it. Empty objectives belong to none and dont give VP. This is the reason why some aspects of the game have been tweaked: 1) More rounds: Games tend to be slower, since you dont rush into your enemy objectives once you hold and forget yours. You need to assign some of your troops as rear holders and carefully think what your priority is every round. 2) New main missions: With fixed number of objectives and new victory conditions, we think new missions pair quite good with the new objective holding rule. Playtesting showed us a new game of smarter movements and pre-game choices. We had to create our army lists keeping in mind objective holding, while also aiming for some mid-field units. Some of our players did not focus in taking main objectives, but in creating an army that can easily achieve side missions in order to get VP. We think all this creates a quite nice niche of different approaches for a competitive event. |
|
|
|
Post by heisen on Jul 22, 2022 17:39:51 GMT
Related with holding objectives rules: We are aware about the problem they may cause to the Giant Tribes army. We have not been able to test the implications since none of us play that army, but we believe an special exception may be needed for them.
|
|
