Recommend
2 
 Thumb up
 Hide
35 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

Battles of Westeros» Forums » Variants

Subject: Skirmishes - Point System rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Alexandre Suau Martinez
Spain
Sant Cugat del Vallès
Barcelona
flag msg tools

Hi guys,

I've been playing BW since a while now, and I have just finished scenarios of the basic game and Wardens expansions. Then, i started playing skirmishes of those games and... I just feel the system is pretty awful... Sometimes is just very clear who is going to win the game before even starting, based on what unit cards have each player got. So here goes my questions:

- Have you encountered the same problems with skirmishes? I tried to do some of them allowing each player to choose what cards do they get, instead of making it random, but that just ends choosing always the same cards. Is there any other option that I'm missing?

- I was thinking that a good way to expand the game would be to develop a point based system for creating armys, similar to warhammer. It could have developped maps for it, etc... What do you guys think about that?

Thank you for your comments and, as you can possibly have noticed, my mothertongue lenguage is not english, so sorry if there was any mistake in the post or something similar, I hope it can be understood well enough!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ian McCarthy
United States
Milwaukee
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Can you give an example of an imbalanced setup? What Unit composition did you end up with?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Randolph
United States
Denver
Colorado
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I know exactly what you are talking about Alexandre! We developed the below system, we have play tested it on 3 different game days with 5 different players, and it works fabulously...btw...it's also loads of fun!

Fantasy Flight Games
Battles of Westeros
Advanced Optional Rules – Tournament Skirmish, 1v1 or 2v2

1.a) Tournament Skirmish has combined elements from "Westerlands Bounty," "Lion's Den" and "Killing Fields
– “The Fields of the Lion’s Bounty”
1.b) Two Skirmish cards for Commanders to each Player with a total commander value of 5 or less, three Skirmish cards for units to each Player, two Skirmish cards for terrain to each Player. Players may choose any Skirmish Cards they wish from those available to them. If choosing a Skirmish card for units from a Minor House, that player must also have previously chosen a Skirmish card for a Commander of that same Minor House, a player may not have units for Skirmish from their respective Major and Minor Houses, unless they also have Commanders from their respective Major and Minor Houses. See Skirmish Card Deck group associations below for affiliations between Major and Minor Houses.
1.c) One Commander disc from each Player will be randomly chosen by the opponent Player directly across from them as a secret "Bounty Commander" for the choosing Player and/or Opponent Player Team, this “Bounty Commander” is worth 3 VP's to the opponent or opponent’s Team if the chosen “Bounty Commander” of the enemy is captured / killed.
1.d) Each enemy unit eliminated = 1 VP
1.e) Players follow the Terrain Hex, Unit and Commander set-up rules found on the “Westerlands Bounty” Skirmish Card, with one additional restriction, Players may not initially place any Units / Commanders within two Hexes of the center axis.
1.f) Turn Order goes as follows: the Player with the Momentum Mace is Player A, and is 1st; the opponent Player directly across from them is Player B, and is 2nd. Player A’s Teammate is Player C, and goes 3rd, Player B’s Teammate is Player D and goes 4th.

2.a) Each Player places two victory space markers on their opponent's edge side of the game board anywhere along the back line of hexes after all Commanders, units and terrain have been placed. The victory space markers cannot be adjacent and must be of the same sigil as the House whose side it is placed on. If occupied by an enemy Player’s unit during the Status Phase, the Sigil’s House is changed and the occupying player receives 1 VP. These VP's and VP Spaces change House affiliation according to the last player whose Unit last occupied the victory space during the Status Phase.
2.b) Skirmish Card Decks are grouped as follows: Lannister + TotV, Stark + LotR, Baratheon + Bw/oB

3.a) Morale Track (“Red” at -11) Sudden Death Victory for a “ROUT” may be achieved by any House at any point during the game, including during an active round. A single Morale Track is used, effects on morale for either half of a Team affect the Team as a whole.
3.b) The Skirmish is 6 Game Round's, with 4 Leadership Cards, 4 Command tokens, and 4 order tokens to each Player.
3.c) The Leadership Card Decks are combined for Players on the same Team, but only one House Basic Deck (the 10 Basic Leadership Cards) is used in 2v2. Players on the same Team draw from the same Leadership Card deck, but each Player will have their own separate hand of Leadership Cards, and their own order pool of Order Tokens. In 2v2 Team Skirmish, if the two Player’s forces on the same Team are not of the same Major House; Lannister, Stark or Baratheon, then their deck of Leadership Cards on this Team may not be combined, may not be shared, and both Basic Decks of Leadership Cards must be used. The two Players on this Team may Not exchange Leadership Cards nor Order Tokens.
3.d) Players may use Leadership Cards to order active ally unit(s) of a Teammate as long as those units are within their Commander’s ZOC, but may only order active ally units of a Teammate using an Order Token when the given active ally / Teammate unit is on their respective half, from left to right, of the combined gameboard. For 2v2 Tournament Skirmish, two Side A game boards are needed, and joined, to form one combined gameboard.
3.e) Players on the same Team may exchange up to one Leadership Card and up to one Order Token between them, as long as both Player’s forces are of the same House. Players must give a Leadership Card to their Teammate in order to receive one, and likewise, must give an Order Token to their Teammate in order to receive one.

4.a) Bid Process: for House and the Momentum Mace – Randomly assign one player as “First Bid” by either a die roll, coin toss, or some other means. The 1st Bid player may “Pass,” and this is the only time a player may pass in the bid process, or, must make a choice as follows: a) Choose to have first choice in Great House, giving the Momentum Mace to the other player along with a Green Unit Rank *Banner, or b) Choose to take the Momentum Mace. The opponent Player may now accept this proposal, or may make a counter bid as follows: change possession of the Momentum Mace and raise the Unit Rank Banner bid by one, offering a Green Unit Rank Banner bid if none had been received, or, raise the Rank by one of the Unit Rank Banner offered to themselves, and offer this to their opponent Player. Continue this process until both Players are satisfied, and accept the arrangement. Once accepted by both Players/Teams, the Unit Rank Banners received will be exchanged for the correct House assigned, and then a bonus Unit of ANY Class of the given Rank may be chosen for every Banner received to add to the pool of units received from the Skirmish cards selected for units. Bids are raised by Rank first, then by number of banners; example of bid precedence – [1] Green raised to [1] Blue raised to [1] Red, the next bid may only be [1] Red + [1] Green = [2] total. Great, or “Major” Houses in 2v2, or Team play, are chosen in the following order: Player B, then Player A, then Player D, then Player C. In 1v1 Player B, the Player without the Momentum Mace, chooses their House 1st. *{Note – the House sigil on the banners used during bidding does not matter}

{edited for clarity, consistency of terms, and typos}
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J C
Spain
Madrid
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I agree that Skirmish system depends on chance too much.
For our new campaing, we are developing a point-based skirmish card election system (it's still in initial start-up phase; for example, total army points haven't been decided yet).

Each card would cost an amount of points according to next:

Base points:
1 pt. for each unit showed in the card.

Modifiers (they are cumulative):
+1 pt. for each red infantry unit.
+1 pt. for each blue or red ranged unit (at this purpose, Stark Kennelmasters are considered ranged units).
+1 pt. for each blue cavalry unit.
+2 pt. for each red cavalry unit.
-1 pt. if there are two or more green no-cavalry units.

Here, a photo of the working table





Using this system, cards value varies from 3 (few cards) to 8 (only one, Edmure Tully's). As said before, still in progress but seems quite interesting.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Randolph
United States
Denver
Colorado
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
KelemvorBGG wrote:
I agree that Skirmish system depends on chance too much.
For our new campaing, we are developing a point-based skirmish card election system (it's still in initial start-up phase; for example, total army points haven't been decided yet).

Using this system, cards value varies from 3 (few cards) to 8 (only one, Edmure Tully's). As said before, still in progress but seems quite interesting.


Ahh yes, someone else has discovered how awesome that particular Skirmish Card is for units (2 Red Inf that can move 2 and attack...holy crap!)

I know my/our system may seem a little complicated, it's actually not once you have done the bid process once. Then you get your deck of combined Skirmish Cards, choose any you want under the guidelines, then play!

I would be interested in your points-based system, it seems like it would take a lot of play-testing though to validate the point values.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ian McCarthy
United States
Milwaukee
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
So jealous that you guys get to play this game! I'm not gaming much in general these days.

Regarding the imbalance, what about just letting your opponent choose two of your Unit cards to discard, then re-drawing to randomly replace those two? So both sides would potentially lose two of their best Unit cards. I haven't looked closely at the power differences between the cards, so keep that in mind. I just want it to be as clean and simple as possible.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Randolph
United States
Denver
Colorado
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Hey Ian, if you or Jan are ever in the Denver, Colorado, USA area...please look me up...we will play.

I'll play "whatever" as far as BoW goes, scenarios, RAW, advanced optional terrain rules, regular skirmish, Tournament Skirmish, your version Skirmish...whatever.
1 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alexandre Suau Martinez
Spain
Sant Cugat del Vallès
Barcelona
flag msg tools
Wow!!

I think there are great ideas here! I'll try first that point system for cards, think it's similar as to what I had in my mind.

Thank you and if anyone has more proopsals...


 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J C
Spain
Madrid
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
SFRR wrote:

I would be interested in your points-based system, it seems like it would take a lot of play-testing though to validate the point values.


Yeah, I think this is the hardest part (also establish variable army points: for example there are skirmishes involving 2 army cards, other 3, etc.)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Randolph
United States
Denver
Colorado
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
KelemvorBGG wrote:
SFRR wrote:

I would be interested in your points-based system, it seems like it would take a lot of play-testing though to validate the point values.


Yeah, I think this is the hardest part (also establish variable army points: for example there are skirmishes involving 2 army cards, other 3, etc.)


Yup, that's why I decided to go for the bid system, as opposed to a points-based army-building system (like Hero Scape or the new BL...I think both of those are great, but they have the time and resources to test and develop the proper values for the units/cards, etc., I cannot imagine me trying to play out solo a few dozen different variations of units in test skirmish to try and figure out point values).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ian McCarthy
United States
Milwaukee
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
SFRR wrote:
Hey Ian, if you or Jan are ever in the Denver, Colorado, USA area...please look me up...we will play.

I'll play "whatever" as far as BoW goes, scenarios, RAW, advanced optional terrain rules, regular skirmish, Tournament Skirmish, your version Skirmish...whatever.


That would be amazing, Scott! My best friend is there and I haven't visited him yet, so I might just take you up on that offer.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Randolph
United States
Denver
Colorado
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
KenToad wrote:
SFRR wrote:
Hey Ian, if you or Jan are ever in the Denver, Colorado, USA area...please look me up...we will play.

I'll play "whatever" as far as BoW goes, scenarios, RAW, advanced optional terrain rules, regular skirmish, Tournament Skirmish, your version Skirmish...whatever.


That would be amazing, Scott! My best friend is there and I haven't visited him yet, so I might just take you up on that offer.


you gotta try 2v2 Tournament Skirmish, at least try it once...the only downside is set-up time, it takes a long time to set up
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken Watson
United States
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
KelemvorBGG wrote:
I agree that Skirmish system depends on chance too much.
For our new campaing, we are developing a point-based skirmish card election system (it's still in initial start-up phase; for example, total army points haven't been decided yet).

Each card would cost an amount of points according to next:

Base points:
1 pt. for each unit showed in the card.

Modifiers (they are cumulative):
+1 pt. for each red infantry unit.
+1 pt. for each blue or red ranged unit (at this purpose, Stark Kennelmasters are considered ranged units).
+1 pt. for each blue cavalry unit.
+2 pt. for each red cavalry unit.
-1 pt. if there are two or more green no-cavalry units.

Using this system, cards value varies from 3 (few cards) to 8 (only one, Edmure Tully's). As said before, still in progress but seems quite interesting.


I like this idea in theory, and it appears that you put a lot of thought into how to cost a given card, but I don't think that this accounts for variations in units for a given faction or sub-faction relative to vanilla Stark and Lannister units. Specifically, from my recollection, many of the Baratheon and Tully units (and possibly others) are de facto better than Stark and Lannister equivalents. This is limited by the game based on reducing their number/ranks on each given card (with some exceptions, as already identified (I'm looking at you, Edmure)). Based on that, there should probably be a modifier if the card includes some select units (e.g., +1 point if the card includes Storm's End Sentinels, or something).

Of course, this just adds more complexity. As of right now, I'm thinking that just implementing choice of skirmish cards for units, instead of randomly selecting skirmish cards for units, is the way to go to keep it simple. That way, in addition to selecting which commanders you want, you can also choose the units that you want (in a lot of cases, certain units synergize well with certain commanders). The same can be done for terrain (it would suck to play Tully and not have a river, or to play Tribes without crags). This would certainly keep it simple, while giving you more choice in the matter (though maybe not as much as with using points).

Thoughts?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Randolph
United States
Denver
Colorado
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The Archon wrote:
KelemvorBGG wrote:
I agree that Skirmish system depends on chance too much.
For our new campaing, we are developing a point-based skirmish card election system (it's still in initial start-up phase; for example, total army points haven't been decided yet).

Each card would cost an amount of points according to next:

Base points:
1 pt. for each unit showed in the card.

Modifiers (they are cumulative):
+1 pt. for each red infantry unit.
+1 pt. for each blue or red ranged unit (at this purpose, Stark Kennelmasters are considered ranged units).
+1 pt. for each blue cavalry unit.
+2 pt. for each red cavalry unit.
-1 pt. if there are two or more green no-cavalry units.

Using this system, cards value varies from 3 (few cards) to 8 (only one, Edmure Tully's). As said before, still in progress but seems quite interesting.


I like this idea in theory, and it appears that you put a lot of thought into how to cost a given card, but I don't think that this accounts for variations in units for a given faction or sub-faction relative to vanilla Stark and Lannister units. Specifically, from my recollection, many of the Baratheon and Tully units (and possibly others) are de facto better than Stark and Lannister equivalents. This is limited by the game based on reducing their number/ranks on each given card (with some exceptions, as already identified (I'm looking at you, Edmure)). Based on that, there should probably be a modifier if the card includes some select units (e.g., +1 point if the card includes Storm's End Sentinels, or something).

Of course, this just adds more complexity. As of right now, I'm thinking that just implementing choice of skirmish cards for units, instead of randomly selecting skirmish cards for units, is the way to go to keep it simple. That way, in addition to selecting which commanders you want, you can also choose the units that you want (in a lot of cases, certain units synergize well with certain commanders). The same can be done for terrain (it would suck to play Tully and not have a river, or to play Tribes without crags). This would certainly keep it simple, while giving you more choice in the matter (though maybe not as much as with using points).

Thoughts?


Well Archon, you have clearly read my mind. In trying to be polite, I did not come out and just say that random skirmish cards suck (wildly imbalanced outcomes, easy to test the theory, just sit down and draw cards for a few iterations, write done what you get, and you will see what I mean); AND, the points-based system requires a HUGE amount of play-testing to come up with even semi-valid values.

Yes, the base game and the Stark & Lannister units there are the base units, but no one else after this has "base/regular units"...think about it, are there Tully or Baratheon "regular" or "base" blue rank infantry?...No, there aren't, not really.

...And this is all OK, it is certainly OK with me (yes, I'm a fan boy), but it creates some really complex problems when attempting to create base values for various units in a points-based system.

That's why, quite frankly, I have to declare that a BID system where players choose their houses AND units based on their own EXPERIENCE and their evaluations of the units is much better, and is a "self-balancing" system.

If you include all expansions in your skirmish system, as I do, House Stark is clearly superior to House Lannister in available units from LotR and WotN. House Baratheon has the best over-all Elite units (for lack of a better term), however, their Skirmish cards are balanced out by a dearth of 4-unit cards, and a large number of 2-unit cards.

A points based system would take a really long time to make playable, and I do not believe that the outcome would be worth the effort. I have play-tested the bid-based "tournament" (as we call it) skirmish system, and it already works.

Archon, you already guessed a really interesting dilemma in play. When I was Lannister vs Baratheon in Tournament Skirmish, I chose lots of Hills and Crags for terrain, my opponent very shrewdly chose a much larger percentage of cavalry units and NO hills or Crags, our two halves of the game board were dramatically different and created really fascinating tactical choices and outcomes.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J C
Spain
Madrid
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
SFRR wrote:
The Archon wrote:

I see your points and are quite reasonable.
I agree and disagree at same time , let me explain myself: except for ranged "artillery" units from LotR and BwB (they are the mean reason for +1 pt. for blue ranged units looking for some balance) and -probably- cavalry from BwB again, I don't see units from little box expansions especially overpowered. The infantry ones are nice, yeah, but not decisive.
About Baratheon cards, they are a little bit worse than Stark / Lannister ones but they are compensated by the possibility of searching sinergies like Davos and smugglers or Andrew and knights, etc.
Having this is mind, it's totally true an extensive test is required.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Randolph
United States
Denver
Colorado
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
KelemvorBGG wrote:
SFRR wrote:
The Archon wrote:

I see your points and are quite reasonable.
I agree and disagree at same time , let me explain myself: except for ranged "artillery" units from LotR and BwB (they are the mean reason for +1 pt. for blue ranged units looking for some balance) and -probably- cavalry from BwB again, I don't see units from little box expansions especially overpowered. The infantry ones are nice, yeah, but not decisive.
About Baratheon cards, they are a little bit worse than Stark / Lannister ones but they are compensated by the possibility of searching sinergies like Davos and smugglers or Andrew and knights, etc.
Having this is mind, it's totally true an extensive test is required.


...but if YOU are willing to spend the exhaustive hours of play-testing and come up with an awesome points-system I will gladly play it! LOL
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J C
Spain
Madrid
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
SFRR wrote:

...but if YOU are willing to spend the exhaustive hours of play-testing and come up with an awesome points-system I will gladly play it! LOL

Sorry if I explain myself wrong: I wasn't asking anyone to test my -no capital letters needed- system just pointing the fact. I'm going to do in my group: maybe tomorrow, maybe in a six months period, maybe never. I'm just sharing it and seeking feedback, so you do with yours -again, no capital letters needed-. That being said, I'd be very grateful if someone tries it and shares the experience.
Disclaimer: no flame is intended.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken Watson
United States
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
KelemvorBGG wrote:
SFRR wrote:

...but if YOU are willing to spend the exhaustive hours of play-testing and come up with an awesome points-system I will gladly play it! LOL

Sorry if I explain myself wrong: I wasn't asking anyone to test my -no capital letters needed- system just pointing the fact. I'm going to do in my group: maybe tomorrow, maybe in a six months period, maybe never. I'm just sharing it and seeking feedback, so you do with yours -again, no capital letters needed-. That being said, I'd be very grateful if someone tries it and shares the experience.
Disclaimer: no flame is intended.


No worries; none was perceived by me. Being an old-school Warhammer player, I have always liked points systems as a way of customizing war/battle games. But while I agree that there is not a glaring difference in the effectiveness of a lot of expansion units relative to Stark/Lannister base game units, there is some, which could be the basis for making the value of a "point" more fine. In other words, if you were playing a 15 point game, then I could see a R'hllor Zealot being the same cost as a Stark base game infantry. But if you were playing a 100 point game of the same size (i.e., same number of units), then I could see a slight difference (9 points versus 7, perhaps). But I do think that some units DO necessitate a more fine points distribution (Storm's End Sentinels, with their "Pursuit 1", are WAY better than vanilla Stark/Lannister infantry, but not twice as good (i.e., 2 points versus 1 point)). But this is why it would need playtesting, as you said.

Regardless, if you do end up playtesting it enough to come up with a solid system, I very much look forward to seeing it! I, unfortunately, am far from having played the game enough to start experimenting so radically (so many unplayed scenarios, not enough time), but I got involved in this thread because my friend and I do want to start customizing our games a little, and do not like the randomness of skirmish. That's why I'm thinking, for now, to just start allowing choice of unit and terrain cards. Hopefully, with enough play, I can start playtesting a few other ideas (including, perhaps, yours).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Randolph
United States
Denver
Colorado
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
J C - I was just joking with you, capital letters were for humorous effect only.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J C
Spain
Madrid
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
SFRR wrote:
J C - I was just joking with you, capital letters were for humorous effect only.

Ok, I understand now. Not sure if capital + final LOL work as a double negative, double positive or double whatever
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken Watson
United States
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Oh, and as a corollary to what I stated above, I DO (there are those all-caps again) like that you were making your points system card specific, and not necessarily unit specific. It makes it easier to fudge the numbers a bit on points per card, and it may give some of those weak-ass skirmish cards some actual play!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Randolph
United States
Denver
Colorado
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The Archon wrote:
Oh, and as a corollary to what I stated above, I DO (there are those all-caps again) like that you were making your points system card specific, and not necessarily unit specific. It makes it easier to fudge the numbers a bit on points per card, and it may give some of those weak-ass skirmish cards some actual play!


To your point Ken, we instituted a rule where if a player wants units of a minor house, they have to have a commander of that same minor house; the Tully example is the easiest one for me to remember - everyone who wins 1st choice and takes Stark-Tully seems to want that 4 units unit card with the 2 red infantry and the 2 blue archers, the trade off is that's Edmure Tully as a Leader, so you can't have both, and now that player is also forced to take either Blackfish or Piper (Marc Piper if I remember correctly) as the required minor house leader...neither are great, Blackfish is the "least worst" of the two.

This doesn't really solve the issue that you mention though as the worst skirmish cards are just never chosen...because...they suck.

A points system would indeed allow one to combine some of the weak skirmish cards thereby effectively re-including them into the mix of rational choices...cool idea the more I think about it.

We tried to keep the spirit of the skirmish game mechanics, but I see the merit in going to a straight points-based system.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken Watson
United States
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
SFRR wrote:
The Archon wrote:
Oh, and as a corollary to what I stated above, I DO (there are those all-caps again) like that you were making your points system card specific, and not necessarily unit specific. It makes it easier to fudge the numbers a bit on points per card, and it may give some of those weak-ass skirmish cards some actual play!


To your point Ken, we instituted a rule where if a player wants units of a minor house, they have to have a commander of that same minor house; the Tully example is the easiest one for me to remember - everyone who wins 1st choice and takes Stark-Tully seems to want that 4 units unit card with the 2 red infantry and the 2 blue archers, the trade off is that's Edmure Tully as a Leader, so you can't have both, and now that player is also forced to take either Blackfish or Piper (Marc Piper if I remember correctly) as the required minor house leader...neither are great, Blackfish is the "least worst" of the two.

This doesn't really solve the issue that you mention though as the worst skirmish cards are just never chosen...because...they suck.

A points system would indeed allow one to combine some of the weak skirmish cards thereby effectively re-including them into the mix of rational choices...cool idea the more I think about it.

We tried to keep the spirit of the skirmish game mechanics, but I see the merit in going to a straight points-based system.


I completely agree with forcing you to have the commander before you can play the sub-house (despite making it more difficult to set up the more interesting "cross-house" combos, like Tyrion and the Tribes or Stannis/Melisandre/Brotherhood).

I had an idea yesterday after posting: your opponent is required to choose one of your unit skirmish cards (of a house/sub-house for which you have a chosen commander). Now, this creates a problem in that I believe most skirmishes only have two unit cards, meaning that you would choose one and your opponent would choose one. Still, it would give play to the less favorable unit cards, though slightly defeats the purpose of being able to select the units that you want to play. Either way, it beats random.

Another thought occurred to me as well, one that I found very puzzling: the choice of skirmish scenarios to play with Baratheon are extremely limited. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Baratheon expansion only included two skirmish scenarios: one that requires you to play Robb and Stannis and another that, while big and variable, has NO terrain. Do the other skirmish scenarios between Lannister and Stark translate well to using Baratheon as one of the sides? Has anybody tried this?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Randolph
United States
Denver
Colorado
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The Archon wrote:
SFRR wrote:
The Archon wrote:
Oh, and as a corollary to what I stated above, I DO (there are those all-caps again) like that you were making your points system card specific, and not necessarily unit specific. It makes it easier to fudge the numbers a bit on points per card, and it may give some of those weak-ass skirmish cards some actual play!


To your point Ken, we instituted a rule where if a player wants units of a minor house, they have to have a commander of that same minor house; the Tully example is the easiest one for me to remember - everyone who wins 1st choice and takes Stark-Tully seems to want that 4 units unit card with the 2 red infantry and the 2 blue archers, the trade off is that's Edmure Tully as a Leader, so you can't have both, and now that player is also forced to take either Blackfish or Piper (Marc Piper if I remember correctly) as the required minor house leader...neither are great, Blackfish is the "least worst" of the two.

This doesn't really solve the issue that you mention though as the worst skirmish cards are just never chosen...because...they suck.

A points system would indeed allow one to combine some of the weak skirmish cards thereby effectively re-including them into the mix of rational choices...cool idea the more I think about it.

We tried to keep the spirit of the skirmish game mechanics, but I see the merit in going to a straight points-based system.


I completely agree with forcing you to have the commander before you can play the sub-house (despite making it more difficult to set up the more interesting "cross-house" combos, like Tyrion and the Tribes or Stannis/Melisandre/Brotherhood).

I had an idea yesterday after posting: your opponent is required to choose one of your unit skirmish cards (of a house/sub-house for which you have a chosen commander). Now, this creates a problem in that I believe most skirmishes only have two unit cards, meaning that you would choose one and your opponent would choose one. Still, it would give play to the less favorable unit cards, though slightly defeats the purpose of being able to select the units that you want to play. Either way, it beats random.

Another thought occurred to me as well, one that I found very puzzling: the choice of skirmish scenarios to play with Baratheon are extremely limited. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Baratheon expansion only included two skirmish scenarios: one that requires you to play Robb and Stannis and another that, while big and variable, has NO terrain. Do the other skirmish scenarios between Lannister and Stark translate well to using Baratheon as one of the sides? Has anybody tried this?


It was the "Too Many Kings" (I think that's what it is called, I don't have it in front of me) Skirmish Scenario Card that inspired my foray into an "open" player-developed skirmish system. I chose a bid-based system with fixed Major/Minor affiliations for simplicity. Before Rob Kouba's (sad, very sad) departure from FFG, I think he was moving in this direction - I infer this on my own, I have no secret connections whatsoever - because the "generic crown" symbols on the card allow for open choices.

I have not actually played the Skirmish Scenario Cards that came with the Baratheon Expansion, I have played "RAW" (rules as written) skirmish once, Westerlands Bounty I believe, and was really frustrated and even angry. Way, way, randomly imbalanced...so, I set out to "fix" it because at it's core, BoW is a fabulous game and worth the effort to develop it to its potential.

My other reason for this is I have changed my game philosophy over the years, I have shed dozens of games, I am much more interested in depth, replayability, immersion in the tactics and strategies over the long term, and skill progression in my game play with a much smaller number of games. Certain game designs support this focus, many do not.

A good Skirmish system for BoW makes this game playable for the "long haul" - worth investing the time to improve oneself in the tactics and strategies over many, many plays.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ian McCarthy
United States
Milwaukee
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
So I took a stab at assigning point values to every rank of every unit type in the game. Here is what I came up with:

Format is Unit type or nickname followed by green/blue/red point cost per unit.

Stark

Axemen 5/7/8
Cavalry 7/9/10
Archers 5/8/12
Dogs 5/6/8

Maidens 6/8/9
Tridents 7/8/9
Lancers 8/10/11

Lannister

Spearmen 5/7/8
Cavalry 7/9/10
Archers 5/8/12
Heavies 6/8/9

Crossbows 6/8/12
Peasants 4/7/9
Pikemen 4/6/8

Baratheon

Axemen 6/8/9
Lance cav 8/10/11
Smugglers 6/7/8
Archers 7/10/14
Sword cav 7/8/9
Zealots 5/7/9

Tully

Riders 8/9/10
Longbows 8/12/16
Warriors 6/8/10

Tribes

Axes 6/8/8
Swords 6/7/9
Riders 8/10/11

Brotherhood (all blue)

Cavalry 12
Longbows 9
Scrappers 8
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.