 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
Pen dull
Super Moderator
| Joined: | Wed Apr 13th, 2005 |
| Location: | Madison, Wisconsin USA |
| Posts: | 1896 |
| 40k Armies played: | 12+k Orks 2+k Marines 1k Eldar. |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
|
Posted: Sat Nov 14th, 2009 12:31 am |
|
Back-in-the-day around 1999, there was a scenario called "Battle at the Big Camp." It was a multi-player game, where three or more ork warbosses met on the field of battle (of course, this being the 41st millenium and all there is is war and all).
The game asked the players to roll randomly for turn order each turn. This was important, I'm assuming, because player one would always have an advantage over player three, since he could win an assault and sweep into a new assault without player three ever having a chance to react to that assault.
Every turn, everyone would assault. Even if it was player one's turn and only player two and three had units in assault, they would still fight.
My question to everyone is: is this still necessary? Now units may not sweep, only consolidate after assault. What would be a disadvantage to a player going third or fourth in a multi-player game if that player always went third or fourth in a multi-player game? Should the idea of random turn order be done away with in scenarios involving multiple players?
____________________
"How is that even possible?!?"- Milkman
"Everybody can take all summer to build one flyer a piece.... Bam instant flying retard fest." - joe
"When you die, I'm gonna cry a little." - Derling
|
ethmongul
Super Moderator
|
Posted: Sat Nov 14th, 2009 01:20 am |
|
| After some thought about this, I am of the opinion that we don't need to. However, I wouldn't be opposed to keeping it if everybody wants to, but no, I don't think it is necessary for the game.
____________________
Makin' it up as I go along!
"A man who maketh the same mistake twice is like a dog going back to its own vomit."-Pendull
|
Lord Bran Redmaw
Member
| Joined: | Sun May 4th, 2008 |
| Location: | Shorewood, Wisconsin USA |
| Posts: | 377 |
| 40k Armies played: | Space Wolves, Daemons, Necrons, and soon orks |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat Nov 14th, 2009 08:45 am |
|
i am a big fan of randomizing the order of play it adds an element of fun to the game. I like the that it is possible to get 2 turns back to back i.e. u go last in one turn then roll to go first next time.
____________________
Balls
|
Brother Tiberius
Super Moderator
|
Posted: Sat Nov 14th, 2009 10:42 am |
|
| Being 3rd or 4th would stink if you were the target of 2 or 3 turns of shooting...
____________________
I prefer not to take my political advice from a guy that sounds like he should be pushing a fish cart...
D Company: Just when you think you've hit rock bottom, someone hands you a shovel...
|
ethmongul
Super Moderator
|
Posted: Sat Nov 14th, 2009 12:16 pm |
|
Brother Tiberius wrote: Being 3rd or 4th would stink if you were the target of 2 or 3 turns of shooting...
Good call!
____________________
Makin' it up as I go along!
"A man who maketh the same mistake twice is like a dog going back to its own vomit."-Pendull
|
Brother Tiberius
Super Moderator
|
Posted: Sat Nov 14th, 2009 12:18 pm |
|
| Use a deck of cards or something in that situation. One suit to a player. Draw cards each turn to randomize the order. It's the easiest way to do a multiplayer thing, and kind of fun too.
____________________
I prefer not to take my political advice from a guy that sounds like he should be pushing a fish cart...
D Company: Just when you think you've hit rock bottom, someone hands you a shovel...
|
Pen dull
Super Moderator
| Joined: | Wed Apr 13th, 2005 |
| Location: | Madison, Wisconsin USA |
| Posts: | 1896 |
| 40k Armies played: | 12+k Orks 2+k Marines 1k Eldar. |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Nov 15th, 2009 10:32 pm |
|
While I appreciate interest, the question is ...is this still necessary? Now units may not sweep, only consolidate after assault. What would be a disadvantage to a player going third or fourth in a multi-player game if that player always went third or fourth in a multi-player game? Should the idea of random turn order be done away with in scenarios involving multiple players?
I know that there have been a few posts, but let's give the smallest amount of effort to stay on topic. You could always start another thread entitled, "Clever ways to randomize turns."
____________________
"How is that even possible?!?"- Milkman
"Everybody can take all summer to build one flyer a piece.... Bam instant flying retard fest." - joe
"When you die, I'm gonna cry a little." - Derling
|
Brother Tiberius
Super Moderator
|
Posted: Sun Nov 15th, 2009 11:43 pm |
|
| Yes, you still have to randomize, its the shooting that messes up the plan.
____________________
I prefer not to take my political advice from a guy that sounds like he should be pushing a fish cart...
D Company: Just when you think you've hit rock bottom, someone hands you a shovel...
|
Pen dull
Super Moderator
| Joined: | Wed Apr 13th, 2005 |
| Location: | Madison, Wisconsin USA |
| Posts: | 1896 |
| 40k Armies played: | 12+k Orks 2+k Marines 1k Eldar. |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Nov 17th, 2009 12:40 am |
|
Alright then, cool. How does shooting screw up the plan?
I mean, if you were playing a four-player game, and you were going last every turn, doesn't the new rules (which allow you to set up last and keep your units in reserve etc etc) also give you an even bigger advantage to doing so?
Player one, two, and then three shoot, all shooting at one another with equal chances. The only way player four would be more disadvantaged than player two or three would be if he was in a very open position or had placed an inordinate number of units on the board.
Counter argument?
____________________
"How is that even possible?!?"- Milkman
"Everybody can take all summer to build one flyer a piece.... Bam instant flying retard fest." - joe
"When you die, I'm gonna cry a little." - Derling
|
Brother Tiberius
Super Moderator
|
Posted: Tue Nov 17th, 2009 11:06 am |
|
Pen dull wrote: Alright then, cool. How does shooting screw up the plan?
I mean, if you were playing a four-player game, and you were going last every turn, doesn't the new rules (which allow you to set up last and keep your units in reserve etc etc) also give you an even bigger advantage to doing so?
Player one, two, and then three shoot, all shooting at one another with equal chances. The only way player four would be more disadvantaged than player two or three would be if he was in a very open position or had placed an inordinate number of units on the board.
Counter argument?
I'm thinking your issue is more with flamer or blast templates a turn, two, or three into the game. Gamest tend to move towards the center, or in the case of loot counters or something like that, towards those. Maybe you mount up your army, or maybe you waaggh them to the center, in any case, multiple templates can easily take one or two players out of realitic contention, especially if Troops are what controls the Canned Ham that everyone is fighting over.
____________________
I prefer not to take my political advice from a guy that sounds like he should be pushing a fish cart...
D Company: Just when you think you've hit rock bottom, someone hands you a shovel...
|
Derling
Administrator
| Joined: | Wed Apr 6th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1445 |
| 40k Armies played: | Tau, Space Marines, Space Wolves, Imperial Guard, Eldar, Tyranids, Orkses |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Nov 17th, 2009 11:58 am |
|
Brother Tiberius wrote: I'm thinking your issue is more with flamer or blast templates a turn, two, or three into the game. Gamest tend to move towards the center, or in the case of loot counters or something like that, towards those. Maybe you mount up your army, or maybe you waaggh them to the center, in any case, multiple templates can easily take one or two players out of realitic contention, especially if Troops are what controls the Canned Ham that everyone is fighting over.
that is an excellent analysis.
____________________
There are two things I know to be true. There's no difference between good flan and bad flan, and there is no war.
|
ethmongul
Super Moderator
|
Posted: Tue Nov 17th, 2009 12:39 pm |
|
| I agree. If we don't ramdomize the turns, it might turn into a reserves contest and that's a game nobody likes to be in. I have changed my mind, we should keep the random turns in play. Last edited on Tue Nov 17th, 2009 12:40 pm by ethmongul
____________________
Makin' it up as I go along!
"A man who maketh the same mistake twice is like a dog going back to its own vomit."-Pendull
|
Pen dull
Super Moderator
| Joined: | Wed Apr 13th, 2005 |
| Location: | Madison, Wisconsin USA |
| Posts: | 1896 |
| 40k Armies played: | 12+k Orks 2+k Marines 1k Eldar. |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Nov 19th, 2009 12:17 pm |
|
Derling wrote: Brother Tiberius wrote: I'm thinking your issue is more with flamer or blast templates a turn, two, or three into the game. Gamest tend to move towards the center, or in the case of loot counters or something like that, towards those. Maybe you mount up your army, or maybe you waaggh them to the center, in any case, multiple templates can easily take one or two players out of realitic contention, especially if Troops are what controls the Canned Ham that everyone is fighting over.
that is an excellent analysis.
I'm having trouble following it... maybe it will sink in during a trip to work. What really is the difference between being player Four and being "Half-an-Army" from a 2-player game?
Are you saying that Player One in a four-player game would be more at a disadvantage than player number four?
Does this disadvantage break the game more or less than someone "going twice" when rolling for random turns? Doesn't one break the game more than the other?
____________________
"How is that even possible?!?"- Milkman
"Everybody can take all summer to build one flyer a piece.... Bam instant flying retard fest." - joe
"When you die, I'm gonna cry a little." - Derling
|
Derling
Administrator
| Joined: | Wed Apr 6th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1445 |
| 40k Armies played: | Tau, Space Marines, Space Wolves, Imperial Guard, Eldar, Tyranids, Orkses |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Nov 19th, 2009 12:24 pm |
|
Pen dull wrote:
I'm having trouble following it... maybe it will sink in during a trip to work. What really is the difference between being player Four and being "Half-an-Army" from a 2-player game?
Are you saying that Player One in a four-player game would be more at a disadvantage than player number four?
Does this disadvantage break the game more or less than someone "going twice" when rolling for random turns? Doesn't one break the game more than the other?
As to your first question, one player in a 2 player team might still get wallopped, but can hope that his buddy can still pull off a win. 1 player of a 4-way game going last can be put in the losing bracket by going last consitently
As to your second question, both break the game in some fashion, but i'd rather have it come down during the course the game in a series of die rolls rather than one all consuming pregame lucky die roll.
____________________
There are two things I know to be true. There's no difference between good flan and bad flan, and there is no war.
|
ethmongul
Super Moderator
|
Posted: Thu Nov 19th, 2009 12:28 pm |
|
Army 1 and two will always have a chance to shoot down player 3 before he gets a chance to fire back unless we randomise the turn sequence. Although, player 3 does get the option of holding in reserve, of course. Big Camp scenario does take this into consideration with the random units available or 'awake' during the game, walls does too......... I don't know now.
____________________
Makin' it up as I go along!
"A man who maketh the same mistake twice is like a dog going back to its own vomit."-Pendull
|
Current time is 04:04 am | |
|
|
|
|
