Hello Everyone,

About halfway down this splendid Battle Brothers report Dr Grant makes a good point about how the Reconnoitre scenario (and to a lesser extent 'Hold Ground' and 'The High Ground') doesn't work, especially in a tournament setting.

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=26054

What do you guys think about this small change? Instead of getting 1vp per model that exits from your opponent's table edge, you get 1vp for getting more models off the table than your opponent and 3vp for getting twice as many off.

There's more incentive to engage and fight for the other victory points, but getting models off the table will still swing the game.

Thoughts?

_________________
Titans Wargames Club

http://s10.zetaboards.com/The_Titans/index/

Still bad, in my opinion tournaments should ALWAYS do their ranking by tournament points where you get X amount of points for winning, Y amount of points for drawing, and Z amount of points for losing.

That is very true, but Reconnoitre is still broken. A small elite army will always lose to a horde. Changing VPs awarded for getting models off the table gives the elite force a chance to win.

_________________
Titans Wargames Club

http://s10.zetaboards.com/The_Titans/index/

I totally agree on tournament scoring, anything else is a joke.
As to reconnoiter being "broken" I totally disagree. It's about recon! More scouts/spies should give you the advantage lol. If you're really bent out of shape about it narrow the battlefield so there's less ground for a smaller force to cover.

_________________
Commission Painting @FB http://www.facebook.com/squyrepainting
Commission Customers include:
GBHL Youtube Channel
MiniWargaming

I think some of you are forgetting the changes GW made with their latest FAQ's. For the game to end one army has to be reduced to 25% of their starting number, and models who leave the table do NOT count as casualties, so you cannot simply walk your army off the board, there has to be a considerable battle, followed by you running as many men off the board as possible without surrendering the battle in the middle.

Right on Suicidal Mars Bar, this game really did scew the reults at the doubles tournament one year.

think some of you are forgetting the changes GW made with their latest FAQ's. For the game to end one army has to be reduced to 25% of their starting number, and models who leave the table do NOT count as casualties, so you cannot simply walk your army off the board, there has to be a considerable battle, followed by you running as many men off the board as possible without surrendering the battle in the middle.

However the above is true, and that the troops had to me moved off the opposite table edge. The majority of people had low or even no scores (Dawrves and Hobbits particularly.) I took a Rohan force and only mananged to get four members of the Royal Family off with heroic fights. The heroic march and the monsterous power attach barge will have a significant impact on this scenarios. It is still a fun scenario, one side always seems to completely whip the other.

I have lost this scenario before even though I out fought and slaughtered much of the enemy, getting bogged down and and running out of time is the killer here. Breaking through with a fleet footed force whilst sacrificing the majority of your army tying down the enemy.

Even with models that leave not counting as casualties there isn't much need for a horde army to properly battle a smaller one, just hold them up until you've got more than 6 models off, then your opponent can't win with just the VPs for breaking you and killing your leader. Then you set bad match-ups everywhere and move all your heroes out of standfast range so you quickly break and get reduced to 25%.

Terrain and table size are always factors to consider. Impassable/difficult terrain can funnel a much larger army into bitesize pieces and a pure Dwarf army would be much happier playing Reconnoitre on a 4x4 board than a 6x4. But it is still true that an army that has a much higher model count than it's opponent is far more likely to win this scenario as it can always spare more models to do nothing except run away.

I would also like to take the opportunity to point out that tournaments run by The Titans (like the one we have over the August Bank Hol weekend) always have and always will award Tournament points for W/L/D and not base tournament results on scenario VPs.

_________________
Titans Wargames Club

http://s10.zetaboards.com/The_Titans/index/

I'm not sure Reconnoitre is broken, it's more about the army you choose. As in real life, some army types will be better at certain tasks than others. An elite army can't expect to fill all roles, Domination wouldn't work well either. So if you're going to a tournament and you don't know the scenarios, you either balance your army and take a more generalist approach, or you specialize and hope you get the right scenarios.

it's more about the army you choose. As in real life, some army types will be better at certain tasks than others. An elite army can't expect to fill all roles, Domination wouldn't work well either. So if you're going to a tournament and you don't know the scenarios, you either balance your army and take a more generalist approach, or you specialize and hope you get the right scenarios.[/quote]

Or like my mate Ranulf (hence the doubles tournament team "Ranulf your Dwarf is exposed" team name) who decides to go for whatever looks short and stumpy for good armies, and big and bouncy (Shelob and the spider queen particularly) for Evil, with apparently no tactical consideration!

In the context of my article I was actually only saying Reconnoitre was broken in the tournament setting where you score as many tournament points as you score Victory Points. There is thus no incentive to actually win the game as all this will do is cost you models, Victory Points and Tournament points.

In normal play I actually really like Reconnoitre although I agree it's a little broken. Low number/elite armies will always struggle in a way that they don't in Hold Ground or High Ground. If you play a goblin horde against a White Council army then the goblin horde should just run past them and they'll almost certainly win but then that's the risk you take taking elite hero armies. I think the aim of the designers was to discourage cheesy hero armies in favour of rounded armies and I think the scenarios really reward that.

Reconnoitre does always seem to boil down to a slightly bizarre Maths contest though along the lines of "I've got 70 Goblins, he's got 35 Riders of Rohan/Eagles, if I move 34 models off and assuming I kill a couple of his models, he can't win so I can then just throw in everything else and try and get broken to win the game". The whole scenario tends to make my head hurt towards the end as each player works out if and when it's in their interests to try and get broken. Doesn't seem to be all about the killing!

Similarly, it's frustrating that a lot of the scenarios (Domination springs to mind here) often end with ridiculous tactics like moving your heroes away from your warriors so that they're not covered by Stand Fasts in the hope they run away, reduce you to 25% and end the game. I think you should always have to make positive moves to win a game and sadly, a lot of games end in those weird situations where one side is in a good position so is throwing models forward to die to end the game whilst the other side is shielding so they don't kill them. Bit silly IMO.

The most broken scenario by far is To the Death though, horrible game which ultimately boils down to who hid their leader and banner the best (not to mention the fact that Moria goblins are immediately disadvantaged by not being able to take banners). That scenario should be 1/3 VPs for wounding/Killing the Leader, 3 Vps for Breaking the enemy, 3 VPs for breaking the enemy FIRST, 3 VPs for reducing the enemy to 25% and 3 VPs for reducing the enemy to 25% FIRST. The game ends at the end of a turn when 1 or both sides have reached 25%. We've tried this out and it's great fun, it also means that there's an incentive to keep fighting aggressively after you're broken. Good fun.

Still, I don't have many better ideas on how to make balanced scenarios due to the way that in SBG you pay for models individually (So VPs for casualty cost isn't really viable) and the fact that an SBG game can be anything from 10 (?) to 30 (?) turns so turn limit doesn't work.

All good fun though, its 5:15pm, it's the weekend - I'm going to the pub - WOOP WOOP!

_________________
Finished 2nd in the 2014 GBHL. My Wife's so proud

Free SBG fanzine: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=29569

Agreed, it don't like that either. It takes you right out of the epic LotR experience and plunks you firmly down into rule manipulation. We have this unspoken rule that we don't resort to "uncharacteristic" tactics like that.

In those scenarios where the VPs are based on model count the points you get for actually fighting (breaking the enemy and killing the leader) become far less significant. If the maximum VPs for getting off the table/holding the central objective or hill was capped at 5 there would be an incentive for both sides to carry on fighting to break their opponent.

You could do something like 1vp for more models off the table/on the hill, 3vps for twice as many and 5 for 3 times as many. The scenario objective gives the most points, but not so many that the other objectives are meaningless and getting broken and having your army evaporate is desirable.

_________________
Titans Wargames Club

http://s10.zetaboards.com/The_Titans/index/

Or 1pt for 1/4 of your army, 2pts for 1/2, 3pts for 3/4, 5 for whole

So to achieve the "whole" option you stated above I could not have any casualties lol

I'm personally not a fan of calculating percentages of my force for points (beyond 1/2 of it) "Oh dang! I only got 5/6's of my force off the battlefield not 7/8's looks like i lost 2/48's of a point!" Lol

My 'vote' if you will, would be you recieve 1 point if you get any units of your force off the board/on the hill, an additional 3 for getting at least twice the number that your opponents did. The normal scoring for force broken and leader killing, that way it takes a balanced play, not just a mad-dash across the field, and you haven't gotten overly complicated in your calculations for the VP's.

_________________
Commission Painting @FB http://www.facebook.com/squyrepainting
Commission Customers include:
GBHL Youtube Channel
MiniWargaming

I completely agree with this, there's very little point going for the break or the leader in those scenarios. Recon is the worst offender because you can kinda avoid each other's armies, in Hold Ground and High Ground the closer proximity of the objectives/armies means you really have to have a fight and so those other conditions do come into play more often than in Recon.

However I like your idea (quoted above about 1, 3 and 5 VPs for Recon), might give that a go at some point in the future.

_________________
Finished 2nd in the 2014 GBHL. My Wife's so proud

Free SBG fanzine: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=29569

You have a point-I am not a fan of Reconnoitre, though I'm fine with the other scenarios. As has been said by others it is nigh-on impossible to win this one if you are against an almighty horde, particularly if you yourself field a smaller, more elite force. As somebody who likes to field Dwarves this scenario is even more difficult, since they are both elite and not exactly known for their speed either!

Your version of the scenario could certainly even things out a fair deal.

I particularly like to field good forces, which generally makes it harder given that most of the cannon-fodder troops are on the evil side (i.e. Orcs and Goblins), though the good guys do get Hobbits I suppose. Hmmm....Maybe a force of Hobbits allied with Madril and some rangers might be in order? Possibly with Faramir and some Knights as well

Cheers,
Gandalf

_________________
A lord of wisdom throned he sat,
Swift in anger, quick to laugh,
An old man in a battered hat,
Who leaned upon a thorny staff.

Yeah, Damian can we use your version of Reconnoitre at the bank holiday tourney? It is miles better than the original.

Oooh, interesting, it would be at the tournament organiser's discretion I suppose so down to Chris and Damian. It would essentially be a custom scenario. As long as everyone knows in plenty of time to get a few practice games in I'd be up for it, it'd put a fresh spin on one of the scenarios.

_________________
Finished 2nd in the 2014 GBHL. My Wife's so proud

Free SBG fanzine: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=29569

Awkward moment here Dr.Grant I was actually chattin about Damian Grantham's version...

I know dude, so was I! Don't think I've suggested a different version of Recon anywhere!

_________________
Finished 2nd in the 2014 GBHL. My Wife's so proud

Free SBG fanzine: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=29569