|
Post by fishboy on Apr 19, 2012 7:50:16 GMT -5
Maybe someone already stated this but how about forcing a minimum of 1 HQ (slot) and 2 troops for every army. Then beyond that you can not duplicate a force selection until all force selections have been used once. So in other words everyone has one HQ and 2 troops but you can not have a second elite until you have one fast and one heavy too.
|
|
|
Post by professor on Apr 19, 2012 8:16:29 GMT -5
And I agree that I like having tactical choices to make, this would be a cool rule to have if everyone had to take one of every FO slot and it was like the secondary objective. But with no Forced comp and it being the contribution tracker it just seems flawed. I agree, it is not a contribution tracker. I must have missed the contribution part in the original discussion, but I guess it is gone now. Running it BAO style would be interesting for missions and you can just vary the standard deployments for each round to fulfill the needed 3 rounds. Requiring you take one of each force org before you can take a second though sounds interesting.
|
|
|
Post by Icemyn on Apr 19, 2012 8:26:10 GMT -5
Now I just want to see how this will all shake out. Standard missions Standard Deployments with some Bonus Points based in some way on Force Org Hunting.
If there isn't going to be a contribution tracker, than the Force Org Hunt should be per team not per player. It will encourage more cooperation among the team.
I like any of the three ideas mentioned if we are doing a force Org Hunt: 1) If neither player on the team has a Heavy support for example your team gives up that bonus point. 2) Force players to take a minimum of 4 out of 5 slots. 3) Joe's idea about not being able to get a second til you fill all of the slot's out.
|
|
|
Post by hyv3mynd on Apr 19, 2012 9:42:18 GMT -5
Any of those sound fine to me, just nail it down ASAP because DE, GK, or Nids, I'll have some painting to do either way.
|
|
nutter
Sergeant
Ben "Ginger Gotee" Lucko
Posts: 304
|
Post by nutter on Apr 19, 2012 14:07:19 GMT -5
The rules will be live and finalized 4/22 like in the original post so about 20 days-ish to prepare. and I'm only really back and forth on the scoring side, I don't think the FO is going to change, aside from going to a 2-4 for troops rather than 1-3 as it is now
|
|
nutter
Sergeant
Ben "Ginger Gotee" Lucko
Posts: 304
|
Post by nutter on Apr 22, 2012 14:21:26 GMT -5
Someone read the bonus points section and see if they can come up with a better way to word it.
|
|
|
Post by professor on Apr 23, 2012 10:37:56 GMT -5
Here is the original rule. I slightly reworded it to make it more clear. I think the example is a bit unclear, since there are cases when you can kill 2 HQ units and still not get the bonus (SW/CD)
Diversity of Destruction In addition to points for a Win/Loss/Draw, bonus points are awarded for eliminating enemy units (one from each opponent) from a single force organization type.
At the end of the game, starting with HQ's, determine if an HQ belonging to each opponent has been removed as a casualty. If so, award a bonus point. Repeat this process for Elite/Troops/Fast Attack/Heavy Support slots.
Dedicated transports count towards this bonus and are tallied with the same Force Organization type as the unit with which they are selected.
If an opponent has no units for a given type, count it as if a unit was removed as a casualty for that type.
Example: Opponents A and B have the following casualty lists: A: 1 HQ, 1 Troop, 2 Fast, B: 1 HQ, 1 Troop. In this case, 2 bonus points are awarded (HQ, Troop). No points are awarded for Fast because only a single player lost a fast attack selection. However, if opponent B did not bring any Fast selections, an additional bonus point would be awarded.
|
|
|
Post by fishboy on Apr 23, 2012 11:04:52 GMT -5
Is this team or individual?
|
|
|
Post by Icemyn on Apr 23, 2012 11:27:29 GMT -5
Initially it was individual but the wording update seems to indicate team. I like the new setup. Thanks Ben, I appreciate you listening to our complaints/concerns.
|
|
nutter
Sergeant
Ben "Ginger Gotee" Lucko
Posts: 304
|
Post by nutter on Apr 23, 2012 12:12:01 GMT -5
Yes its team based, Joe.
And thats why I ask for the player imput Dean, I know things I come up with are no where close to perfect. More people having fun means a better turn out, which means more people for the next one.
Also + 1 for the name over Bonus Points
|
|
|
Post by professor on Apr 23, 2012 12:22:41 GMT -5
I am glad it makes sense to people, it is a simple idea but hard to describe succinctly.
The other name I was considering was 'Dismantle the Enemy'
|
|
|
Post by bromento on Apr 23, 2012 12:29:18 GMT -5
So this is now a team event?
|
|
nutter
Sergeant
Ben "Ginger Gotee" Lucko
Posts: 304
|
Post by nutter on Apr 23, 2012 14:05:51 GMT -5
Its... always been a team event, you dont come with a partner, you get a new one each game. the scoing was changed from per player to a per round type thought
|
|
|
Post by bromento on Apr 23, 2012 15:07:11 GMT -5
lame, I meant is it a come as a team event.
In my mind this is a solo tournament because there will only be one top winner.
|
|
|
Post by fishboy on Apr 23, 2012 15:40:35 GMT -5
Heh...consider it a swingers event....everyone wins
|
|