SW:A Inducements?

[Gentlemanloser]

So you can only spend 1 cache at a time?

 

And if you spend a cache, you get further away from winning, as you need to accumulate them and *not* spend them to win?

 

Hmm...  I think I like that even less.

 

It's just more weight in favour of the original winner.  You as the loser get 1 cache, you need to save that to keep pace and have a chance of accumulating 15.  While the winner get  (potentially) 3.  Can spend one to get a new recruit, better guns, etc.

 

And it still twice as close to winning the campaign as you are.

 

So next match, you can't spend the one you get (for losing again) as your opponent already has 2.

 

 

As for carrying over, as Leaders are so important, I'd be inclined to pump my 'leader' and take a supe'd up one of those over.

[HeresyBeliever]

Win or lose you get 100 points to spend not any cache's

 

I assume there is the chance to get more cache's but still "lose the battle" which adds to the tactics.  

[Gentlemanloser]

Only if you Leader is still alive do you get the 100 'free' points.

 

Be that as it may, if there's the opportunity for you to win more caches, there's the opportunity for you better staffed, specialised and equipped opponent to also win those extra caches.

 

And as a GK player, the seeming inability to recruit a new Gunner after the campaign starts (as you can never spend more than 200, the 100 'free' and a single Cache), also looks like a total headache as well.

[Cactus]

With the right bonuses you can exceed 400.

 

100 basic

+100 promethium cache

+100 or 150 from the narrative events table

+50 from the scavenger skill. I think this might stack if multiple fighters have the skill.

 

It looks like a balancing factor for the powerful Grey Knights and tyranids. To replace losses they usually have to give up some campaign victory points.

[Gentlemanloser]

Ignoring Narrative Events (no idea how they work), GK still require a Scavenger skill on someone in order to replace, or recruit, a new Gunner.

 

You can't give up more than 1 Cache at a time, can you?

 

And you can't choose skills either, so you need a lucky roll on the skill table.

 

Still seems, iffy, to me.  I much prefer the balance in Blood Bowl if I'm honest.

[Xenith]

So you can only spend 1 cache at a time?

 

And if you spend a cache, you get further away from winning, as you need to accumulate them and *not* spend them to win?

 

Hmm...  I think I like that even less.

 

It's just more weight in favour of the original winner.  You as the loser get 1 cache, you need to save that to keep pace and have a chance of accumulating 15.  While the winner get  (potentially) 3.  Can spend one to get a new recruit, better guns, etc.

 

And it still twice as close to winning the campaign as you are.

 

So next match, you can't spend the one you get (for losing again) as your opponent already has 2.

 

So, in other words the person that wins the most games is likely to win the campaign?

 

And this is a problem because?

 

You can either choose to spend your caches on recruiting more, then push to win during the end game, or keep the caches to try and get an early lead, but might get caught up.

 

As ever, campaigns work best with multiple players, not just 2.

[Gentlemanloser]

It's a problem because it's a downwards spiral from the result of the first game, and the loser can seemingly never catch up (or there are no methods in place to allow the loser to have a chance to catch up).

 

You might as well never have a 'campaign' and just play single matches.

 

I doubt there's many people that would enjoy playing 5 or 6 or more matches facing an uphill struggle each and every game, just *trying to break even* and not even getting past their opponent in terms of resources, or 'winning'.

 

So yeah, to me it's a problem.

 

How do campaigns work with multiple players?  If you have 4 players, are there 2 first matches?  Then randomly you play a different opponent for your second?

[N1SB]

Ok, just got home after a game, went through the post-game more carefully with this thread in mind.

 

I agree with the great information in here except one minor thing.... I tried to recruit a new member to my GK team and found I could not figure out a way to include a Gunner. Since they start at 200 there is no way to buy them the compulsory hand to hand or special weapon.

So if I've missed something here let me know but as of now I believe Grey Knights can only add a 'Grey Knight'.

 

I hear you, Brother.  It looks like you either take a GK Gunner at the start, or not at all.

 

You're NOT alone, but it's still good you know this limitation, so you can pay in advance.

 

The surprising thing is, even for "mob" armies with cheap units have the exact same problem.  Even Orks, for example, have a special weapons guy that exceeds the 200 point threshold...and this is an Ork we're talking about.

 

So you're totally correct, but it turns out all lists have this problem.

 

 

 

It's just more weight in favour of the original winner.  You as the loser get 1 cache, you need to save that to keep pace and have a chance of accumulating 15.  While the winner get  (potentially) 3.  Can spend one to get a new recruit, better guns, etc.

 

And it still twice as close to winning the campaign as you are.

 

So next match, you can't spend the one you get (for losing again) as your opponent already has 2.

 

 

You're basically right, and the situation gets even worse wasn't as bad as I initially thought.

 

My opponent got 5 4 Promethium Caches tonight.  1 for playing + 1 for achieving the Special Conditions of that mission + D3 in the post-game for winning (he rolled a 6).  I think my other friends who want to play are going to be mad at me, as I'm basically giving him easy points to win the campaign.

 

It'll be difficult to catch up, and we're thinking of ways to manage it so others at least have a chance.  We have several ideas we're thinking about right now, but it's only because we have multiple players that will have multiple teams, so we can rotate around easily.

 

It sounds like I'm being negative, but I'm not.  I agree with the points made, but I also feel the following is true:

 

1. This isn't a sport.  This is war.  We're considering balance mechanics, but not overly worried.

 

2. Campaigns seem like they can be short.  So we'll rewrite our teams, adjust our tactics.  Even with the carry-over mechanic, the costs will really accumulate with Skills and Attribute Advancements, and remember, these are randomly generated.  At least this is a lot better than in 30k/40k, where you may find your army is totally not for you only after you bought & painted up a 1500 point army.  It's just 1 squad!

 

3. I think there're lots of hard counters.  Aside from maybe Scout Snipers, I don't yet believe there's a take-all-comers faction.

 

It's really early days yet.  I'm answering a lot of questions here, just to share what insight I have with the book, but it won't be until 1 or 2 campaigns down the line that we get a grasp of what the game's really like.  By that time, there may be new FAQs or common practices out.

[Gentlemanloser]

Great post!  The only thing I'd add is yeah, it's not a sport.  But it's supposed to be a fun game.

 

I'm having trouble selling this to my mates (I'd hoped this would be a great way to get them back into 40k, but it seems I need to wait for 8th for that...) as they don't find this unbalanced mechanic 'fun'.  As subjective as that is. 

 

Which is a *massive* shame.

 

If campaign play was even close to games like BB (which isn't really balanced, but it gives somewhat of a nod to evening out play between new/hurt teams and established ones) I'd have a much easier time trying to get my mates to pick SW:A up.

 

As it is, they don't want to touch it.  Which is a downer.

[Brother Tyler]

The Runaway Leader problem looks real in this case.

 

In a more balanced system, winning a battle should provide a small bonus, scaling depending upon the longevity of the bonus (i.e., a bonus that only works once might be significant while a bonus that is perpetual might be very small).

 

So perhaps the solution is in realigning the campaign victory and kill team recruitment rules, effectively separating them (while still allowing players to trade campaign/victory points for small recruitment bonuses along the way).

 

That might be more of a Homegrown Rules thing, though, so I'll hold off for now. Plus, I need to read the rules in-depth to consider, and I'm probably going to break out Necromunda, Legends of the Old West, Legends of the High Seas, and Mordheim to see where they handled things differently (since they all effectively use a very similar rule set).

 

As a baseline, though, perhaps it ought to start as simply as saying that whenever a model is killed, you may replace it with an appropriate recruit model. That, at least, would allow for a chance of parity.

[Prot]

There are other strange intangibles at play. I've lost games where I've put 3 opponent's dudes out of play for the next game! Unfortunately I don't get to play him after that. So yes he beat me, but his next game could be ugly.

 

Just a suggestion for Promethium Problems. I've always been a big fan of Maelstrom but to prevent the 'runaway' issue we always capped multi point Maelstrom cards as D2 points at most. So all multi Promethium missions can be altered to only result in at most 2 per player.

 

That being said I don't have a problem with it. Honestly my guys dying, and new guys coming in... guys changing, and growing. Getting named, getting geared up and having a history is what this is about for me.

 

So there will be runaways. I have no doubt. But it ends at 15 Promethium. Then you restart. Heck you can even carry over your favorite dude if you really want to pay the extra points. I look at it as an opportunity to be a fun, short run.

 

The whole system feels very fast paced, from the games to the campaign. It's hard to feel stagnant when it moves like this. I will add that when you play this you really have to adapt to the mindset. This is such a different system you have to throw your baggage out the door. This isn't an ITC/win at all costs, super tournament here.

 

We're talking about a system that has the odd game end in one turn! (I've seen this more than once). Guys die, some just... won't die. These are the stories the Imperium is made of. You make your own story, that is the journey; that is the reward. Enjoy it.

[Gentlemanloser]

You can get the same sort of thing in BB.

 

Win a match, but have 5 guys killed/miss the next match.

 

So in a league, the next (and different) opponent you play should have a easier time.

 

But in BB there are 'free' Journeyman replacements (if your team is smaller than the minimum 11), which after a match you can always buy if you want to keep them (maybe a journeyman won MVP for some reason), and lower networth teams (which I you lose guy, especially those with skill ups) get temporary cash bonuses to try to even things up.

 

So while 5 dudes dying at the start of a league might potentially be a massive thing, it's possible to claw back from.

 

This doesn't look the case in SW:A and with a bad first couple of matches it's more like saying "OK mate you've won this campaign, even though you only have 6 Promethean, let's start a new one".

 

There doesn't seem to be much reason to stick with, or continue a campaign that's not going in your favour.

 

Edit:

 

I think as Brother Tyler mentions above, one of the main problems might be Victory conditions are tied to squad resources.

 

Win more, earn more, which makes it easier to win more and earn more, etc etc.

 

I know I keep going back to BB, but I'm familiar with it. :)

 

You might lose a match in BB 1-2.  But earn more cash from it than your opponent.  And get more skill ups than him.  So you get the better team, even if you're 'losing' the league currently.

[Eddie Orlock]

... That might be more of a Homegrown Rules thing, though, so I'll hold off for now. Plus, I need to read the rules in-depth to consider, and I'm probably going to break out Necromunda, Legends of the Old West, Legends of the High Seas, and Mordheim to see where they handled things differently (since they all effectively use a very similar rule set). ...

In the second post of this thread I did a bit of a rundown on how they handled this in Necromunda, and how at the time I presumed they'd handle this in Shadow Wars.

 

It seems that developing a set of 'inducement' mechanics based on those shouldn't be too hard.

 

I think I'd start with reintroducing the concept of 'team combat ratings'. Basically the total points cost of all your dudes and their stuff, plus a factor for all their skills and advancements. The first is an easy summation. The second is only slightly more complicated, but fortunately the game primes us with factors for that, each skill is worth 25, and each advance is worth 15. Put together this should produce a reasonable estimate of 'team combat rating'. Left to me, I would totally omit 'reserved promethium' from this analysis, the stockpiled Campaign VPs you have so far don't directly help you earn more VP's. We might bump by 100 for each spec operative temporarily assigned to each mission?

 

Now, with these numbers we have a few examples from other games to draft from of ways to redress campaign balance. 1) We could award premium prizes for an upset victory. 2) We could award additional resources just for attempting. 3) We could offer temporary reinforcement just for that scenario. 4) Other things I've over looked. Now the tricky part comes for at least these first three in establishing the thresholds and implications.

 

For Case 1) I'd suggest we might trial the bar set at 1 bonus promethium cache awarded each time a team defeats a team whos 'TCR' exceeded theirs by 300 points and one more for every 300 further points of marginal difference.

 

For Case 2) I'd suggest we might trial 1 bonus advancement during the post match advancement phase for the lesser team for each marginal 200 points of rating difference between the teams.

 

For Case 3) I'd suggest we might trial that for every 100 points of marginal TCR difference at the start of the match the lesser team may roll a D6. For every six scored they may include for this game only one free special operative without spending promethium.

 

 

-----------

 

I'll also note that as released the standard campaign is only to 15 points. If it's possible to earn up to five in a game from select missions the whole thing could be over in as few as four games. Of course this assumes that the winner here didn't spend any of her caches, rolled well, and that any spent by her opposition weren't enough to turn the tide against her.

 

Also, given steady, if limited, income from just playing matches, I suspect part of the key to balance might be regulating who gets to play who and how often. You could be locked out of victory if the rest of the league just denied you opposition until they felt they were ready. Gamey and unsporting, but you know.

[Stoic Raptor]

 

My opponent got 5 Promethium Caches tonight.  1 for playing + 1 for winning that mission + D3 in the post-game (he rolled a 6).  I think my other friends who want to play are going to be mad at me, as I'm basically giving him easy points to win the campaign.

 

I fear you might be misinterpreting how caches are awarded.  The winner does not get an additional D3 caches, they get D3 instead of just one.  

It's entirely possible that the winner might also get just one cache for winning, same as the loser.

It's not "one for playing plus D3 for winning", it's one for losing, D3 for winning.  I hope that clarifies, and I can see why a misconception might cause the gap you speak of.

[shandwen]

The looser does have a huge chance to get better guys than the winner: "what doesnt kill you".

[N1SB]

 

 

My opponent got 5 Promethium Caches tonight.  1 for playing + 1 for winning that mission + D3 in the post-game (he rolled a 6).  I think my other friends who want to play are going to be mad at me, as I'm basically giving him easy points to win the campaign.

 

I fear you might be misinterpreting how caches are awarded.  The winner does not get an additional D3 caches, they get D3 instead of just one.  

It's entirely possible that the winner might also get just one cache for winning, same as the loser.

It's not "one for playing plus D3 for winning", it's one for losing, D3 for winning.  I hope that clarifies, and I can see why a misconception might cause the gap you speak of.

 

 

You're right, thanks for correcting me.  It's 1 Cache for Losing, D3 for Winning.  Good, I'll clarify with that player, too.

 

 

+++ Edited, with the above in mind +++

 

 

Hey, in light of this correction, I've got to similarly adjust my views on the Runaway Leader issue.  Even before, I was alright with it, while understanding the concerns we all have.  This correction just further mitigated that issue.

 

So I got 1 Cache and 100 points for losing...badly.  Nearly everyone was down, but no one died (as I said, it's hard to actually die), and I got 2 Advancements, 1 for 1 of my boys, 1 for actually an Out-of-Action model (via the "What Doesn't Kill You" result on the injury table).  It's easier to get a Stat/Skill bonus for getting your butt kicked than it is to die.  Score: Loser 1.

 

My opponent got 4 Caches and 100 points for winning by a huge margin with his Elite list (Harlequins).  He didn't table me but could've if I didn't fail my Bottle check (I wanted to play on, because new game and all).  He spent a Cache and 100 points for 1 new Recruit.  Ended up with 3 total.  Score: Winner 3.

 

The net difference was 2 Promethium Cache between the big winner and the big loser, in terms of campaign progress to 15 Caches.  And this was after the biggest domination you could imagine.  I got pants'd.

 

In short, this should've been the most extreme example of a Runaway Leader, the way he won and I lost...and it wasn't even that bad.

 

 

+++++

 

 

Then I considered the following, on this topic of an Inducement-like mechanic:

 

Journeymen issue - on dealing with actual deaths to your team, I'm repeating myself, but on the Injury table, you're MORE likely to get an Advance than actually dying.  Ironically, after comparing a sport (Blood Bowl) to war (Shadow War)...you're more likely to die in the sport than the war (I remember dying players were an issue in Blood Bowl, thus the Journeymen mechanic).

 

Pre-game petty cash - this was how Blood Bowl dealt with higher rated teams; it lifts up the weaker team.  Shadow War has a different mechanic that has a similar effect: a cap on how many fighters you can have for a team, thus it caps the stronger team.  In the case of the Elite team that beat me (Harlequin) they bought 1 new Recruit-level guy.  He could basically but 1 more before maxing out.  That's as big a team as he could get.  Sure, he could still get Skills, but only at the same rate as the rest of us, win or lose (in fact, probably you can get more Skills from losing).

 

Thanks to Ulfgrim for setting me straight on this one, because if this is as bad as it gets...it's not that bad.

 

 

+++++

 

 

I am considering what was mentioned above.  I played a House Orlock chain gang and a Scavvy gang, as well as an Undead Blood Bowl team, in the original versions, so I know what you mean.  I actually had some problem with it, ironically, in that if teams were always balanced, why bother winning?  I'm not kidding or being contrary, I am thinking back now and I remember having arguments about that.

 

 

+++ on a mechanic we're thinking, just as another Fail-safe +++

 

 

The one thing I was really thinking was what Brother Eddie was mentioning: a balance mechanic that's not so much more House Rules, but just limiting how much the Leader of the Pack (i.e. guy with most Promethium Caches) could be fighting, thus limiting his progression.  We were thinking of something similar because we are all players with multiple teams we want to try.

 

Our thought was this - At some point a clear Leader of the Pack emerges.  Let him only be challenged by the Top Challenger, who is the next person down the rung in terms of Promethium count; the Leader can't fight otherwise.  To earn that Top Challenger spot, a team has to similarly beat the others, accumulate a lot of Promethium.  The Leader of the Pack, during this period, just watches from his Promethium-powered stronghold...letting the others catch up from their constant battles.

 

In short, Shao Kahn does not rise from his throne until you beat all the other stages.

 

What happens is that the other players/teams catch up in Promethium count and Recruit/Rearm-ing, while the Top Challenter earns his right to challenge the Leader of the Pack OR he actually earns more Promethium than the Leader has, due to a lucky post-game roll...in which case the Challenger becomes the NEW Leader, and now HE's the guy to beat.

 

The benefit of this is, it's so simple it's not even a house rule; it's a gentlemen's agreement.  It's an easy-to-understand system.  If you're clearly dominant, just sit pretty, watch the lesser gangs fight it out to your amusement as they gain strength to challenge you.  It shouldn't take long.

 

(The added benefit is that it's so cinematic.  The current Big Bad just watches, waiting for a worthy challenger.)

[Cactus]

Great post N1SB. Your thoughts about the Leader of the Pack have sparked an idea. This might be controversial but bear with me.

 

I've never played a Necromunda campaign that concluded with a 'winner'. They tend to peter out, perhaps with a clear leader of the pack, perhaps not. After a period of time somebody feels the urge to play more Necromunda, we round up some players and start fresh gangs. Sometimes an old gang would also return to the fight.

 

My idea is that the Shadow War victory conditions are a way of codifying this cycle of stop and reset. When a winner emerges it's time for everybody to start afresh, with the option to retain your favourite fighters by paying the increased cost for their skills and stat increases. This is also a good entry point for interested players who weren't around when the campaign started, which resolves another problem of campaigns: how to bring in new players when the existing participants are all capable of stomping a new gang into the dust.

 

The more I look at Shadow War the more convinced I am that it was written by people who played and loved Necromunda, were aware of its issues, and wrote the rules with the intention of fixing them. Only time will tell how successful they were.

 

TL:DR - The Shadow War campaign system is the brake on runaway leaders. If your group finds that 15 VPs is over too quickly just increase the target next time around.

[N1SB]

 

I've never played a Necromunda campaign that concluded with a 'winner'. They tend to peter out, perhaps with a clear leader of the pack, perhaps not. After a period of time somebody feels the urge to play more Necromunda, we round up some players and start fresh gangs. Sometimes an old gang would also return to the fight.

 

My idea is that the Shadow War victory conditions are a way of codifying this cycle of stop and reset. When a winner emerges it's time for everybody to start afresh, with the option to retain your favourite fighters by paying the increased cost for their skills and stat increases. This is also a good entry point for interested players who weren't around when the campaign started, which resolves another problem of campaigns: how to bring in new players when the existing participants are all capable of stomping a new gang into the dust.

 

The more I look at Shadow War the more convinced I am that it was written by people who played and loved Necromunda, were aware of its issues, and wrote the rules with the intention of fixing them. Only time will tell how successful they were.

 

TL:DR - The Shadow War campaign system is the brake on runaway leaders. If your group finds that 15 VPs is over too quickly just increase the target next time around.

 

Your experiences with Necromunda matches mine and I've been thinking what you said about the Shadow War campaign system itself with 15 VPs.  Just returned from another game.

 

I literally wiped out my opponent, just as he did last time (same opponent, but he used a different team).  This again was the worst case scenario; all but 1 of his guys was Out of Action (1 lucky survivor that crawled away was Down).  Despite the huge casualties, he lost only 1 Plasmagun Special Weapons Guardsman (sadly the most expensive, really bad luck, he rolled snake eyes on the Injuries table), then bought back to life with his Recruit + 1 Cache post-game action (we said his Sergeant sacrificed the Promethium for an evac shuttle to airlift the person to a hospital, etc.)

 

(To put into perspective the effects of losing, 1 person "died" and came back, but 2 Guardsmen got Hatred for my Ork Gunner there, 1 Guardsman is now Frenzied, as a result of being Wounded.  1 "death" to 3 level-ups, and this is all just from being Seriously Injured, not counting Advancements yet.  Losing really doesn't hurt that bad.)

 

In short, I won a perfect game and only had a net 3 Cache difference.  How perfect?  This was my Orks' deployment...

 

http://oi64.tinypic.com/2h52zjk.jpg

 

...and I had the 1st turn.  I did offer my opponent a chance to redeploy, but he was alpha enough to stick by his decision and it wouldn't have mattered, because I had the 1st turn.

 

If I had 5 perfect games in a row (detail: you need to HOLD 15 Caches, then win 1 final mission)...then I could win this campaign.

 

And winning the campaign's meaning may not be as big as it sounds.  In the fluff of the book, the 15 Prometheum Caches doesn't mean you saved/conquered the Hive; it means you got enough fuel to blow open the vault doors to a stash of war supplies.  Obviously, we have our own interpretations (an Eldar Harlequin force might be using this to burn out a hideout of Slaaneshi worshippers, Orks might be blowing up a Hive wall to let in his Armoured Krumpany of Trukks and Battlewagons), but at best it suggests you secured just a single district, and the war goes on.

 

So I do see the above point about the 15 Caches goal itself as a way to reset (remember, even carry-over fighters with Skills cost a premium for those Skills).  I'm getting the feeling it wasn't an even 10 because they found that was too low, while 20 was at a point when players get sick of 1 team dominating.

[Eddie Orlock]

... Our thought was this - At some point a clear Leader of the Pack emerges.  Let him only be challenged by the Top Challenger, who is the next person down the rung in terms of Promethium count; the Leader can't fight otherwise.  ...

To fight for the number one headband you must first possess the number two headband? I only worry that it'll create an NPE for the leader who gets punished for his success by not getting to play anymore.

 

I still think that TCR is probably a better measure than stashed cache. While the stash can reasonably directly indicate win/loss record, it can also just indicate 'time in grade' which means it would warp and distort if a team was frozen out of regular rotation. Like if they had the number one headband. It could also strongly incentivise the expenditure of caches for recruit/rearm points making the strong team even stronger and more likely to win than the team that lost. As noted, this may just be balanced out by hard recruitment caps.

 

Noting the 'friendlyness' of the injury chart is a key insight. While their is no evidence of this, I'll claim to have come to this understanding last week but refrained from posting as I didn't think the audience would be receptive to it. That you're more likely to develop by getting your butt kicked would suggest that the teams should trend toward equal over time. It may also lead to the slightly perverse tactic of deliberately attempting to expend rookie models in an effort to score favourable injury results.

 

There's probably some analysis that could be ground out about probable advancement/cache accrual that could serve to indicate which teams are better off stockpiling to go for a quick end lest the rivals fully develop and which teams are better served by prolonging the struggle to bring all their reserves online.

[Gentlemanloser]

You could still have more of your squad get'what doesn't kill you' than your opponent, and win the match.

 

As for restarting, i think of you ever got a dude with scavenger, you bring them along. Always.

 

It might even be worth building up a squad with cheaper guys wirth just that skill to roll over to new campaigns just get that early foot up. If possible.

[Prot]

The problem that I see with trying to take advantage of continuing a character is the expense vs the probability of him dying. I've just seen some incredibly brutal games including my own.

 

Funny thing happened to me last night. I had a game I lost by bottling out in T4. The game on the table next to was especially violent.

 

At the the end of my loss I had as much promethium as the winner, but he had a dude dead and 2 that were going to have to miss the next game with frenzy. The guy next to won his game but had 3 guys ou of action! He actually had a fighter taken prisoner and although he got a bonus of 200 points in total he had to blow it on Youfs.

 

It's a funny game. I just don't see the imbalance being a big issue. I mean 40k is a billion percent more imbalanced than this. But regardless I love that nearly every army is quite playable.

[N1SB]

To fight for the number one headband you must first possess the number two headband?

Noting the 'friendlyness' of the injury chart is a key insight. While their is no evidence of this, I'll claim to have come to this understanding last week but refrained from posting as I didn't think the audience would be receptive to it. That you're more likely to develop by getting your butt kicked would suggest that the teams should trend toward equal over time. It may also lead to the slightly perverse tactic of deliberately attempting to expend rookie models in an effort to score favourable injury results.

There's probably some analysis that could be ground out about probable advancement/cache accrual that could serve to indicate which teams are better off stockpiling to go for a quick end lest the rivals fully develop and which teams are better served by prolonging the struggle to bring all their reserves online.

The Number 1 Headband/Afro Samurai was the analogy I was going to make, but was afraid fewer people would get it, but that's actually what I had in mind! I also acknowledge the trade-offs.

The problem that I see with trying to take advantage of continuing a character is the expense vs the probability of him dying. I've just seen some incredibly brutal games including my own.

Funny thing happened to me last night. I had a game I lost by bottling out in T4. The game on the table next to was especially violent.

At the the end of my loss I had as much promethium as the winner, but he had a dude dead and 2 that were going to have to miss the next game with frenzy. The guy next to won his game but had 3 guys out of action! He actually had a fighter taken prisoner and although he got a bonus of 200 points in total he had to blow it on Youfs.

It's a funny game. I just don't see the imbalance being a big issue. I mean 40k is a billion percent more imbalanced than this. But regardless I love that nearly every army is quite playable.

That's the type of thing I'm observing as well. And now I'm noticing a new thing.

Imbalance issues due to having unlucky games and losing are far less an issue than I initially thought, when I made my initial post in this thread. I read the thing, but it was not until I actually sat down with my opponent and we worked out our post-game, that we realised, "Huh! Losing's not that bad."

That was the initial theme of this thread, the need for Inducements or Journeymen, to make up for losing and trying to catch up...

...but now I'm realising the actual pain point isn't really losing and trying to catch up; it's the need for a re-do of a roster, a "Mulligan".

My starting game where I got pants'd, I actually walked away from fine in terms of casualties and things. No one died or was captured, thus my team wasn't diminished, didn't need Journeymen to make up the difference. The problem was my list was flawed to begin with and I had no confidence in it going forward. I made a new list, nobody voiced out or minded, since we're all just starting out anyway.

And starting out is the problem because we honestly don't know what works and what doesn't yet. We just think we do, but your 1st post-game sit-down really makes you challenge your initial assumptions. All us veterans of Necromunda, 40k, 30k, have many theories, so they need to be tested out.

So a Mulligan mechanic or, as I prefer, just a gentlemen's agreement that I can introduce a brand new team in the middle of a campaign (which is not a huge issue, so they have a fresh team, but no Advancements nor Caches nor extra Recruit/Rearm points) is probably more important.

Again, no need to codify, but just an understanding we're all just starting out, and we're all introducing new teams anyway (because this game so invites you to buy a buy just 1 or 2 squad boxes of an army you always wanted and hey! That's your entire Shadow War team now) so just let people start anew.

[Stoic Raptor]

I remember one game in our Necromunda league many, many years back, where my Goliaths bottled after taking down his leader. However, we made out a lot better in the post-game sequence and also captured his leader.  After the ransom, it turned out that we gained more from the battle than he did.

 

 My friend is a great guy bit he always tends to be a braggart who overestimates his ability. Our league newsletter proclaimed his gang "We lose by winning!" and mine "We win by losing!"  He was so humiliated.

 

I imagine such things can happen fairly regularly in SW:A as well.

[Brother Tyler]

I was able to pick up my SW:A box from my FLGS today and was able to read the rules.

 

The "runaway leader" issue isn't as big a problem as some might think.

 

Winning might give the kill team more promethium than the loser, but it might not. If you use your promethium to spend more points (i.e., exchange 1 promethium for 100 points) or to take a special operative, you're forestalling your victory. Granted, using those points for recruiting or rearming confers a long term advantage, but the winner can do the same thing. The special operatives really help, but can only be used for one battle, after which they either leave or you have to expend even more promethium to re-hire them. Those advantages, whether long term rearming or short term special operatives, do help you out a bit, to be sure, but that seems like a suitable reward for performing better.

 

Even reaching the nominal 15 promethium cache mark doesn't guarantee victory. It merely allows you the chance to play a mission to see if you win. If you don't, you continue playing until either you win or some other team wins (someone might sneak behind you and snatch victory from the jaws of defeat).

 

The real challenge is in not having your leader die. As has been said, the chances of that are low. First, they have to be taken out of action, then they have to roll the "Dead...or Worse" result on a d6 (1 in 6), then they have to roll 1-3 on a d6. So if your leader is taken out of action, you have about an 8% chance of them being slain. And this applies to both the winner and the loser - it's possible to win while having your leader slain, just as it's possible to lose while not having your leader slain. Winning appropriately moves you forward on the path to victory (15 promethium total using the standard rules), but you won't be able to recruit or rearm if your leader is slain.

 

Sure, it's easy to paint a doom and gloom picture if you assume a worst case scenario; but it's not as bleak as some may think.

 

If I were going to houserule any mitigation, it would be a modification to my previous:

 

When your Leader is slain, in addition to appointing a new Leader from among your existing models, you have 100 points to recruit a replacement. You must still exchange 1 promethium cache for recruits that cost more than 100 points (e.g., Grey Knights need 200 points just to recruit the bare minimum Grey Knight with Nemesis warding stave). You may not exchange equipment between fighters in your kill team.

That kind of looks like the normal Recruit option, but takes away the exchange of equipment that is available (whether your Leader is killed or not, under the normal rules).

 

Another alternative would be to adopt an "Underdogs" rule (I'm looking at Legends of the Old West right now). This might be a straightforward comparison of promethium caches or it might be a numerical comparison. A numerical comparison would require assessing the points value of each fighter based on the standard cost (i.e., cost to recruit, weapons, and equipment) as well as skills and advancements per the Call of the Promethium Sprawl rule on page 100 of the rulebook. Each player determines the total points value of their kill team and if one kill team's total value is substantially lower, they receive some sort of bonus. In Legends of the Old West, being an underdog allowed for a certain number of re-rolls during the game (the lower your team's rating compared to the other team's, the more re-rolls you get).

 

I'm not sure that such a mitigation is actually necessary, though.

 

Another alternative is to simply use different campaign rules. Granted, this isn't always an option, depending upon your gaming group/community.

 

You might adopt any of the campaign types found in normal Warhammer 40,000. Or you might come up with something completely different.

 

Or you might play a campaign with a programmed series of advances that don't follow the normal Recruit/Rearm/Exchange rules (lots of different variations for players depending on what they want to do).

 

I think that makes a very important point in saying that players really need to play the game in order to figure out the overall meta (and that might vary between groups). Theoryhammering will only get you so far, and doomsayer bias is only going to skew the outcome.

 

In this, the $130 (USD) cost was steep, but a great bargain. For most players, the separately available rulebook will be a much better deal, especially if they already have suitable models. If they don't, most kill teams can be built with only 1 or 2 boxes. The separately available rulebook will actually be a very good thing, giving the broader range of hobbyists access to the game so that they can play and experiment.

[Prot]

Well I've played a lot of games, in two leagues and that's two different metas. I feel confident saying anything can happen in these games.

 

I'll probably post my results in the other thread because it's more applicable.