Gaelcon 2004 ideas

Lemming

Hey folks,

yes this is quite premature, but I started getting mail from people wanting to run games already I thought I'd open this to the gamers at large.

Is there anything that you would like to see at Gaelcon 2004 (in regards Wargames). I've a few ideas for W40k and am mulling over bringing Warhammer Fantasy back this year, along with something I've long desired to see make a return to the fold ......

Epic40k. I've been reading over the new Epic: Armeggedon rulebook and it really is rather nice so the thought had crossed my mind.

Just ideas, but wanting to get the gamers views.

manchine

Epic would be pretty cool. I had a quick look at the new rules last night and they look like they've gone back to their roots is a way as opposed to the BFG style rules that didn't quite suit IMHO.

As for 40K in Leprecon, it's a one day event for the tourney, right? Depending on what you have available to you terrain wise it'd be interesting to have a few widely varying missions to catch out one dimensional armies, but also to see how people cope with something other than a "line up and shoot/charge" game.
Making the objectives out of the ordinary can do the trick. Most tourney games involve VPs for trouncing the other guy or holding all the table quarters.
One GT I was at had a game where *all* the VPs went for holding an objective., nothing else mattered. Made for an interesting game
Another idea might be to give all VPs for getting units into the other guys deployment zone?

Don't know much about WHFB in tourneys but there are plenty of players out there. I'd be surprised if you didn't get a load of people for it?

Ameirgin

Epic is goooood.....Epic is fun......

Epic can also be a headache, as it tends to be a labour intensive game - more so than 40K or WFB. Advise from an old hand Lemming - if you run Epic, keep it small and keep it tight. Objectify your game to keep it moving - no points on offer for standing still .

WFB is an odd fish - experience tells you two different stories. Historically, we never got that many people for it at Galecon - which is why it got dropped. However, other tournies seem to do much better. I do know that some of the 40K players who will always turn up at Gaelcon would also play WFB if it were on a different day.

Hell, I may even join in this year........

hairyheretic

Originally posted by manchine
One GT I was at had a game where *all* the VPs went for holding an objective., nothing else mattered. Made for an interesting game

I have to disagree with this. Take and Hold is not a good mission for a tournament, with its all or nothing scoring.

If a game is hard fought and close, should you lose out on half the mission victory points because the other guy has a model half an inch closer?

Better to give a certain number of victory points for mission specific objectives.

Another idea might be to give all VPs for getting units into the other guys deployment zone?

Patrol Mission, IIRC, works like that.

I have a few ideas for missions and scenairos.

lodgepole

I haven't been in many years... Is the Bloodbowl Tournament still on?

We had a great game of Confrontation a few years back, on the Car Wars table. That or Necromunda could make for an interesting and reasonably fast tournament.

Sarky

I recently tried running Inquisitor scenarios using 40K scale models. It worked wonderfully. You already have the scenery for 40K, and 5-6 models from someone's army gives you a perfect warband. Inquisitor itself is a very good system, I've found. Fast and cinematic. Very nice indeed.

hairyheretic

One thing worth considering is that the new version of 40k should be out just before GaelCon (I've heard September as a release date).

Will this be enough time for people to get and learn the new rules, or will the intention be to run the tournament using the current 3rd ed ruleset?

My preference would be the new rules, but what does everyone else reckon?

Lemming

Originally posted by hairyheretic
One thing worth considering is that the new version of 40k should be out just before GaelCon (I've heard September as a release date).

Will this be enough time for people to get and learn the new rules, or will the intention be to run the tournament using the current 3rd ed ruleset?

My preference would be the new rules, but what does everyone else reckon?

I'd be a bit wary in this respect given that there will be at best 7 weeks between release & 'con. Not everyone may be fortunate enough to have gotten hold of the new rules.

Certainly one to ponder though. Can anyone get a more accurate release date? Even if it's early/mid/late of the month?

Ameirgin

This has happened before (when Gaelcon was in the Burlington), and due to the time constraints, and people's familiarity with the old system, that's what was used. Whatever you do, this is gonna cause issues - people will moan.

Sarky

7 weeks isn't a lot of time. Then again, you could always just use SOME of the revised rules, the really important ones. Have them included on a sheet for everyone who signs up to play. Or possibly advertise where to find the rules being used on the net and suchlike.

hairyheretic

Originally posted by Lemming
I'd be a bit wary in this respect given that there will be at best 7 weeks between release & 'con. Not everyone may be fortunate enough to have gotten hold of the new rules.

This is true, but I expect a lot of people will have picked up the rules, even if they're not completely familiar with them by the time the Con rolls around.

Certainly one to ponder though. Can anyone get a more accurate release date? Even if it's early/mid/late of the month?

I think the lads in the shop have a release schedule for about 3-4 months ahead. I'd say by maybe July they ought to have a fairly firm date for the release.

They may already have a rough date ... probably wouldn't hurt to ask.

hairyheretic

Originally posted by Sarky
7 weeks isn't a lot of time. Then again, you could always just use SOME of the revised rules, the really important ones. Have them included on a sheet for everyone who signs up to play. Or possibly advertise where to find the rules being used on the net and suchlike.

Trying to mix two separate sets of rules is just asking for trouble IMO.

The Trial Vehicle Rules and Trial Assault Rules are already both on the net, and IIRC Graham confirmed at the Conflict that the 4th ed would use a modifier version of those.

From what I have heard, the next edition is not going to be a full rules change the way RT - 2nd - 3rd ed was. Think of it as version 3.5 ... a tidied up, somewhat modified version of the current rule set.

With that in mind, I think that 7 weeks ought to be long enough for people to work out what has changed, and how it will affect them.

Just my oppinion of course

Ameirgin

Originally posted by hairyheretic
From what I have heard, the next edition is not going to be a full rules change the way RT - 2nd - 3rd ed was. Think of it as version 3.5 ... a tidied up, somewhat modified version of the current rule set.

With that in mind, I think that 7 weeks ought to be long enough for people to work out what has changed, and how it will affect them.

Just my oppinion of course

Problem is that not everyone has the resources (i.e. cash) available to go and get the rules straight away after release - so you end up with kids arriving at the con and feeling left out/let down because they haven't got the rules, and don't know them. Then, of course, you get the inevitable "If I'd had the rules/If we'd used the old rules I would have won" kind of comments. Trust me - these are to be avoided at all costs!

Of course - it could be that I am just a cynical, grumpy old sod

hairyheretic

Ok, I was in the shop today, and there's a note on the 40k rulebooks saying the new one is released August 28th. That gives a good 7-8 weeks before GaelCon.

I suppose that whichever ruleset is used, you're going to have people complain that its not the other one.

Sarky

If there's one thing tournament players are good at, it's whining.

Crash

Hrmmm...might actually try and get back into 40k in time for this....do they still sell green stuff?

Karma

a suggestion since there a few of us interested in this.


Epic/Gothic as the overall command structure doing a system invaison.

Epic & 40K for planetfall battles

Gothic for system control/attack/defence

Inquisitor for special ops?

As for 40K rules versions, we could try out the latest trial rules for the CON-have links to GW's site for the free downloads so everybody has the same rules ( no pro whinning!)

I remember a con where a bunch of space marine scouts attacking a Great Gargant, looked great!

2 people to run the sides(not generals) but to put the forces in harms way, so to speak.

a bloodbowl toury would be cool, was in one at warpcon- good fun, the Cork lads have it down to a tee.

my deux cent.

Sarky

Try and mix some sort of LARP into that too. It's great fun playing a space marine commander ordering a few armies about, and getting the armies' owners to fight where you want them to fight.

Lemming

Originally posted by RogueDotC
a suggestion since there a few of us interested in this.

Epic/Gothic as the overall command structure doing a system invaison.

Epic & 40K for planetfall battles

Gothic for system control/attack/defence

Inquisitor for special ops?

This is something that I have been mulling over for the last 2/3 years and would most definitely be cool. But it would only work with pre-arranged players in a 'con setting, otherwise it'd just be absolute anarchy to try and run. It would also take time and space that I'm not sure the 'con can give. It would be cool to perhaps finish off such a campaign at the 'con though.

As for 40K rules versions, we could try out the latest trial rules for the CON-have links to GW's site for the free downloads so everybody has the same rules ( no pro whinning!)

As alluded to before, not everyone will have eitehr the cash for the new w40k 'upgrade' or web-access to get the rules. I'm not even sure how many people check the gaelcon website (must go check)

I remember a con where a bunch of space marine scouts attacking a Great Gargant, looked great!

That was the special events team a couple of years back I do believe. Really cool idea

a bloodbowl toury would be cool, was in one at warpcon- good fun, the Cork lads have it down to a tee.

If someone wants to run one, I'm all ears for suggestions.

Karma

so who is interested?

If you are, get involved.
DotC

hairyheretic

Bloodbowl would be a lot of fun, and I would definately be interested in playing.

My only problem would be trying to get hold of enough boards to run a tournament, along with the assorted counters and such.

hairyheretic

Originally posted by Lemming
This is something that I have been mulling over for the last 2/3 years and would most definitely be cool. But it would only work with pre-arranged players in a 'con setting, otherwise it'd just be absolute anarchy to try and run. It would also take time and space that I'm not sure the 'con can give. It would be cool to perhaps finish off such a campaign at the 'con though.

It might be possible to work up a strategic level 40k game as a special event, but I'm not sure how do-able it'd be in a tournament situation.

Ameirgin

Actually, I have an idea as to how that could run............

Start off with forces split into smaller command groups for the "Assault on the planet" phase (using Gothic rules). Assign points based on kills or objectives or somesuch.

Split the forces up again for the "Take the landing zone" phase (using Epic rules) and each player gets the same army type as they had in the first phase. The points may be varied based on the results from round one, or you may decide to keep each round seperate in terms of army selection. Again, points are awarded.

Having done that, players are paired off (attacker vs defender) for the "Main Battle" section (using the 40K rules). As above, the army lists could vary based on the outcome of the previosu round, or be left independant of that round. An again, points are awarded.

Finally, you have the "Special Ops" round (using Inquisitor rules), and again force selection could be tailored if you wished. Points are awarded.

The points are either tallied completely, or are tallied and averaged to determine the winner. You could run it as a knockout, and remove the lowest scoring player(s) each round, but I think it would be best not to.

That's just my thoughts. You know, somebody said I'd retired from this stuff - who'd have thought that, eh?

hairyheretic

That has potential ....

Perhaps it could be run as a team event, with interaction between the scenarios.

Lets say you had 40k and BfG as the two games. The first would be a planetary invasion one. For each BfG ship that fulfills a certain victory condition, the attacker gets to recycle a destroyed unit. Perhaps the defender has defense lasers as a take and hold objective .... control of each of these lets you take a lance shot on the BfG board.

Or is trying to cross the two games over too complex?

Thoughts?

Lemming

I like this ....

/me goes rummaging for his w40k/BFG/Epic/Inquisitor rulebooks

crimsonfire

didnt they do that with word bearers and black templars as a battle report in white dwarf? i thought it was a cool idea

Kold

I liked that report where they had Black Legion vs Imperial guard & Dark Angels
which was affected by two sidegames of Eldar vs Dark Eldar and Space Wolves vs plague marines.

I don't see why it wouldn't work with different games..

Lemming

Originally posted by Ameirgin

Split the forces up again for the "Take the landing zone" phase (using Epic rules) and each player gets the same army type as they had in the first phase. The points may be varied based on the results from round one, or you may decide to keep each round seperate in terms of army selection. Again, points are awarded.

I've just been re-reading/digesting this and just as I was beginning to see it running in my head, I've unfortunately come across a bit of a problem (for this year at any rate).

I've highlighted the offending section in italics.

Simply put, the epic range wont be sufficiently large enough to cater for all of the armies that we're likely to have people playing with. IIRC the epic roll-out is somewhat slow, with the likes of the eldar et al. not making an appearance until 2005

hairyheretic

I think that trying to get all the systems in is a bit ambitious. Going with available ranges, I would suggest a BfG / 40k tournament would be the most viable.

Make it a team tournament. To keep it simple, 2 players, 2 rounds, 1 day.

Have the scenarios interact with each other.

For example, scenario 1 is a planetary assault. For every transport that the attacker gets to the planet in BfG, the attacker in 40k gets to recycle a destroyed unit.

Second game is a take and hold with the planetary defense lasers as the objectives. Each one in control allows a lance shot from the planet in the BfG game.

Ships within X distance of the planet can choose to fire on the planet instead of enemy ships, giving a bombardment to their ally in the 40k game.

Obviously the scenarios would need to be playtested to try and ensure fairness, but I think it could be do-able.

Thoughts?

Can I presume this would be run in addition to the normal tournaments?

Lemming

Originally posted by hairyheretic

Make it a team tournament. To keep it simple, 2 players, 2 rounds, 1 day.

Have the scenarios interact with each other.

For example, scenario 1 is a planetary assault. For every transport that the attacker gets to the planet in BfG, the attacker in 40k gets to recycle a destroyed unit.

Second game is a take and hold with the planetary defense lasers as the objectives. Each one in control allows a lance shot from the planet in the BfG game.

Ships within X distance of the planet can choose to fire on the planet instead of enemy ships, giving a bombardment to their ally in the 40k game.

Obviously the scenarios would need to be playtested to try and ensure fairness, but I think it could be do-able.

Thoughts?

I do rather like this. We could do this in place of the doubles tournament we had last year. Of course, it's still a doubles tournament but I digress.

I think something like:

Round 1:
Player 1 does a small special ops mission ahead of the BFG game. At turn (x) the BFG game begins with Player 2. The number of Planetary Laser Defenses still functioning/controlled on each subsequent turn affects the BFG game.

Then add the orbital strike option into this round.


Round 2:
Doubles 40k Battle much the same as last year. Possibly up'ed to 1500 pts if there's only the two rounds (and round one doesn't take too long).

Can I presume this would be run in addition to the normal tournaments?

Yes, the normal tournaments still stand, given that not everyone plays (or has played) each of the games involved.

Ameirgin

The other way of running round one is not to have either side defending/attacking the planet. Have both fleets attempting to cover their landing forces - both are fighting over an unoccupied world - making it an open scrap, as it were. Then, you can do up some rules for how the outcome of this affects orbital bombardments (I do like that idea ) or points allocation in the second round, or both.

I think the trick is to make the first round actually have an effect on the second, thus representing a campaign style tournament, and making it everything to play for in each round. Of course Lemming - you've got to run it, and you've got to find people to GM it (rather than play it, which is what I'd want to do) - so the key is to make it simple to run but fun to play.

Lemming

Originally posted by Ameirgin
The other way of running round one is not to have either side defending/attacking the planet. Have both fleets attempting to cover their landing forces - both are fighting over an unoccupied world - making it an open scrap, as it were.

Not bad. not bad at all

I think the trick is to make the first round actually have an effect on the second, thus representing a campaign style tournament, and making it everything to play for in each round.

That's what I was thinking. Now to try and implement it effectively

Of course Lemming - you've got to run it, and you've got to find people to GM it (rather than play it, which is what I'd want to do) - so the key is to make it simple to run but fun to play.

hehe. I'll still need people to playtest it

Ameirgin

hehe. I'll still need people to playtest it

Why do I get the feeling that's hint, huh? Oh well...me and my big mouth

hairyheretic

Well, we've a few months for testing stuff yet.

The idea of the campaign system is interesting, but I'm not sure how practical it would be in a short tournament. You can't make the advantages gained too great, otherwise if someone gets creamed in their first game they'll have no chance to come back in the others.

Karma

did i miss anything?

:P

Lemming

Originally posted by RogueDotC
did i miss anything?

:P

Not at all DotC. In fact you're just in time ......

Ameirgin

Originally posted by hairyheretic
The idea of the campaign system is interesting, but I'm not sure how practical it would be in a short tournament. You can't make the advantages gained too great, otherwise if someone gets creamed in their first game they'll have no chance to come back in the others.

You could do it on a sliding points scale - each player gets, say, 1500 points in the W40K game. For each 50 victory points that you win by in the BfG section gives you 50 additional victory points in the W40K section - or something like that. But it has to be a clear 50 points - 'part of' doesn't count. As most games don't actually have that much of a margin, then you wouldn't be overly hampering the second section. Also, you could say that overall victory is dependant on the total scored in the second half, with ties being decided by the score of the first half.

It's not going to please all of the people - you will always have whingers - but it should at least provide for an enjoyable tournament. And if you make it team play - player 1 playes the first half (BfG) and player 2 the second (W40K), then you can increase the atmosphere further.

OmeGar

I know we did something like that at Dominicon. it was great, however the BFG game ran at the same time......so it affected the game below.

It was cool......

hairyheretic

My idea of this would have the two games running together in each round, with some interaction between the two tables.

Another thought .... unblanced forces.

"Each team must select 2000 points from their respective 40k and BfG lists, with a minimum of 750 points from each."

Would you choose to take a weaker BfG list to boost your chances in 40k, vice versa, or make it roughly equal.

Would games like this be more interesting, but still (reasonably) blanced?

Thoughts?

Ameirgin

Hmmmm.....that's an interesting idea, though I would probably increase the overall points value to, say, 3000 or so points (averaging at 1500 per force). But I would keep the 750 point lower limit on each force.

I think games like this have the potential to be very unbalanced, but the decision is in teh hands of theplayers. They can't say they lost points in game b because of game a - if they don't have the required forces to do the job, it's because they chose to invest elsewhere.

hairyheretic

1000 point forces mean we should be able to fit in 3 games in a single day without making things too rushed.

3 games at 1500 points is do-able, but a lot tighter on time.

Besides, for trying odd stuff lke this, I'd prefer to start small, and maybe incrase it once the bugs were worked out.

If it were to go to 1500 points, I think I'd have a requirement of 1000 points (maybe more) be assigned to each force. I'd prefer to try it at 1000 points though.

I might see if I can work up a few scenarios around this idea, and try them out at the Guild or something. Anyone else interested in trying whatever I come up with?

OmeGar

What about people who have one army, but not hte fleet to go with it (or in my case the other way around?)

Do many people have BFG fleets?

Would it be possible to even have just a BFG tournememnt?

hairyheretic

This is why I would be looking at this as a team event. This way you only need one of the two players with a BfG fleet, and one with a 40k army.

That being said, there's nothing to stop either player from playing in either game. The fleet and army list would have to stay fixed though.

I know a good number of people with BfG fleets, though they tend to play more with their 40k forces.

I'm not sure how a BfG tournament would go.