King of the Hill Recap

We played a King of the Hill event on Saturday, the 5th of January, and it was a blast.  Everyone seemed to have fun, and there was lots of good feedback.

We had 8 players, although almost everyone agreed that the absolute best number was any multiple of 4 + 1, since that person could then move between the tables as needed.

I considered this to be something of a “trial run” for the scenario, and already have some things I want to change.  First, I want to talk about scenario design, and the way that I approach it.  Note that this is not necessarily the way that Privateer Press approaches it, but I would assume they have similar strategies and ideas.

The first thing I do is try and get an idea of how I want the scenario to run – i.e. what makes it fun and different.  In this case, I wanted a blood bath in the middle, with all 4 players trying to control the middle area.  I wanted play to be fast and quick, and players to be changing tables repeatedly throughout the event.

This was not happening as much as I would have liked, and I have some ideas as to fixing it.

First, how to get players to the center?  The first thing is to reduce army sizes.  Large, infantry-only armies tend to be able to spread out more, and can cover more ground, thereby allowing them to handle more of the area and not having to commit as much to the center.  The second thing is to increase the value of the center piece.  This will encourage people to move to the center, and will punish those who do not by giving their opponents more opportunities to score higher.

As for faster play, the smaller armies would help that out too.  We want people to be able to focus on the game, and focus on the center objective.  With four different armies on the table, there is too much going on sometimes for everyone to follow everyone else’s moves.  Less models means less bog down, and less chances for people to get stuck in a bad situation with no alternative but forcing an opponent to assassinate them.

There was one additional point, which was that I wanted players to get rewarded for attempting to assassinate, even if that assassination attempt failed.  Faster kills means faster games and all that.  And I want multiple ways for people to get points during the event, to help players feel like they can try a variety of styles and plays.

That said, I am going to change the victory points next time to the following:

1 point for damaging a warcaster/warlock that is eventually destroyed or removed from play
2 points for assassinating a warlock (destroying or removing from play as a result of an attack or collateral damage from an attack).  Note that they do not get the 1 point for damaging, as it is included in this amount
3 points for controlling the center objective, as per the 2013 Steamroller rules for control
5 points for dominating the center objective, as per the 2013 Steamroller rules for domination

Additionally, I am going to change the list building to be such that, for every 10 points of beasts or ‘jacks taken, you can take 5 points of warrior models.  This will allow people to take up to 10 points of warrior models if their Warcaster or Warlock is at least a +5 point Warcaster or Warlock.  Otherwise, it will allow for 5 points.  You can still do some jamming if you want, but not to the extent that we saw this Sunday.

Thoughts?  Further evaluations?  We had discussed doing a Killbox, but after further consideration, I wanted to see how this would work out first.  I am planning on doing another one of these in February or March, probably on a Wednesday night, since they are so quick to do.

Advertisements

3 responses to “King of the Hill Recap

  1. What if there was a rule saying that the only list restriction was no units whose cost exceeds 3 pts? Then you still let Protectorate and Skorne have their support units, but you don’t have to worry about full infantry units…

    • So terminus with three 3 point units of mechthralls or Macbain(i think) who can make character units one point less. I like the 5 per ten rule better as there will still be someone who will find a loophole somehow. Also, factions like Ret whose jacks are more combined arms really struggle and they only have one 1 pt 1 wound support for there jacks.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s