[Warhammer Dark Omen Forum]

Warhammer Dark Omen Forum | Warhammer Dark Omen | Multiplayer | Rules and Standards
Back to the Roots (BTTR)

[Ghabry]

Ok maybe only "Don't play lame" is not exact enough.

Thanks for your posts.
After reading them I will now sum up:

- Some Units are reduced to 2 Units max: Black Grail, Archers, Artillery
- Mages are reduced to 1 max in whole army
- No hit and run or permanent camping
- No Horn

Before the battle you can of course discuss with the player about other things like e.g.:
Horn allowed, No Magic Items, No Teleport


Would you agree with this guidelines for "Don't play Lame"?

[Darkmancer]

looks fine to me.

[Jeronimo]

Me too

Me too

Me too

Me too

Me too

Me too

Well... here you have +6 supporters.
Emoticons have posted in your favor Ghabry!

[olly]

Looks good but

- Some Units are reduced to 2 Units max: Black Grail, Archers, Artillery

Your rule allows 2 units of BGK, 2 elven archers, 2 mortors/lobbers, so no one would ever use cannon or other lesser arty/archers and all other units can be spammed (many of same unit).

However I have found,

- Only 2 of same character allowed, except Super Units, then only 1 of each - 1Mortor, 1 cannon/lobber, 1 BGK , 1 Elven Archer etc.. -"can now include Mages".

Prevents this and is a tried and tested method.

[Ghabry]

Well. As I have written it's only a guideline.
The rule "Don't play lame" still applies. What would you think about army builds like e.g. 8 Flagellants .

[olly]

Sorry,
I see that in your initial post that "all new players can ask here about if their army is Lame or not", is also intended to prevent Lameness and my redefinition of your rule was more usefull for when they first join our community, to quickly get them up and running to play their first games before having to read or post/debate about various allowed army combinations. My redefinition was trying to avoid debate over what is and what isn't a Lame Army build.

[gemmell76]

im glad we got this sorted! 

[alavet]

i dont like it cause i dont have faith in humans

and every1 feels diffirient what is lame and what is not. for example there is a game we played with flak when i had 1 canon and 1 lvl3 mage and he had crossbowmen, x2 regiments of flagelants (1-3 units) and some other regiment (hvnt remembered which one, maybe elven archers or ogres)

i felt completely in rules to teleport out with mage and meteor him a little. (or i did false charges or something wierd liek that instead teleport i hvnt remembered). at these times tourney rules was: when you have 1 mage u have to go cc, otherwise u free to do anything. so i had cannon and it was in rules

finally i won but i know Flak was very pissed off, and from my view i hvnt played ungently much, even though at first time i thought i 70% lost and tried to survive "for fun" but atfer i killed 2 regiments game became "even" and it would be stupid to surrender.

but from his point of view he maybe thought he has big advantage and maybe by his gentle rules i had to go in cc and die




and there was another toruney (maybe FO or 7k point system or something) where osiris and elven archers were too low in cost and i felt "ungentle" to use either osiris or mass archers (and its not fun) but Flak used such army and compeltely crushed me. So i also felt pissed of, but he was in rules, and more importanly he could think that his army is fine and gently.

so even experienced players can have troubles, what about newbies?

[Jeronimo]

DO original Multiplayer is really nasty.

My first FO release was a bit to play lame (remember all those BGK), but then got sharp.
Imo the last FO version uploaded (without Halberdiers Spam), is the closest version to a "finally correct game".

Concerning to Original game, I also thought in a way of resolving armybuilds: is a combination of Points + SEC.

There are no limits in amount of regiments, because was resolved with Single·Elite<=Core (very simple)

And also these "Points" are given considering the Gold Limit played: 3k (12) 5k (20) 7k (28) 9k (36)

Well, for the points of each regiment I should upload a large table , but I thought in everything already.
Examples (points): Flaggelants 5, Wraiths 4, BGK 12, K of Realm 2, Spider/Scorpions 1, Necromancer 3, Vampire 5.

The clasification in S, E or C, its already thought. Even Items have their own Point value (Horn at 18 points).
I hope this helps to create something cool. My NEVER POSTED Ruleset is named "Goldpoint".

Just "Dont play lame" rule". But concerning to Armybuilds, there is no need of it (everything well balanced )

You can even buy shields and experienced regiments. It would be the most free Ruleset for original game.

[Darkmancer]

Sorry Jeronimo your missing the point.

[Jeronimo]

Yes I know. Its a big suggestion to convert BTTR in Goldpoint (after reading Alavet post).

If we limit Flaggelants to max 1, all armies (no exception) will have 1 flagellants.
If we limit Flaggelants to max 2, all armies (no exception) will have 2 flagellants.

Its the truth.

Working hard on BTTR would end in a sort of 9k/DOTv5 (because follows the same structure of limiting Nº of Regs).
I dont want to break down expectations about BTTR, but so far feels like spinning around.

[Mikademus]

I think some points should be made:

1) We should NOT stipulate a lot of rules about what constitutes "lame play", because
1a) We will always recognise lameness
1b) People will try to circumvent or exploit rules
2) We do not HAVE to stipulate explicit rules because we will generally recognise when people are trying to ride the rules. This is in English called "gaming the system". Thus, the only things we really need are:

A. Do not play lame. See to the intent rather than the letter of the recommendations.
B. Do not attempt to game the system.
C. A good game is when both players have fun.

[Jeronimo]

There is a general tendency to consider that a "good game" is that one which ends with Close Combat.

As Mika says "both have fun", but when we have this at last minutes: 21/24 Dwarves vs 7/9 Pistoliers.
Pistoliers would win from far, and Dwarves only if Pistoliers go close combat.
From what point of view is a "good game"?

I consider lame doing hit N run with little damage (like cavalry with grudbringer sword, or a pack of goblin archers)
But a hit N run with considerable damage, is not lame. If regiment survived almost entirely...

However, Wizards always should have a different behaviour (as I posted), because each Magic Book has very powerful Spells and something to desmoralize.
The problem with Magic Books, besides those uber-spells, is the combination with the crappy spells at same Level.
Thats why I suggested to Limit each Spell L2 and L3 to max 1 per Magic Cycle, making Wizards less important AND giving a chance to the crappy spells to be used in emergency cases.

Example: Necromancer has Zombies Spells & Black Horror Arzubanipal: He summons the Zombies (beggining of cycle), but they die by a rear attack after 10 seconds, now you cant re-summon them; Do you wait 15 seconds more or do you cast Black Horror Arzubanipal to harm that free Regiment now?!
Same happens with Meteor + Dancing Swords: Everyone would cast 2 Meteors, but now depends on situation...

[bembelimen]

hrhr and I always though Germans are fanatic for rules and restricted games, but it seems other countries are worse

I try to explain a little bit what the BTTR rule is for:

Point 1:

A good game is when both players have fun.

Dark Omen is a game, it's not a challenge. If you look at the last 10 tournaments you'll see, that there are (regardless which ruleset was used) always similar armybuilds. Strong and most time the same units. Did you ever used a goblin based armybuild in a tournament army? do you know how many fun it it? I tried and it was one of the most fun game, hell I lost miserable, but who cares? It was totally fun.

Dark Omen - April Tournament (5000/15) - Fight 1-3 - vs. bembelimen - The Empire	DQ | by Aeva

The main goal of this ruleset is to have fun. Do you really care if you win a battle? Do you really care if you win a tournament? I don't(*).

So this is the next point of the ruleset. You asked:

As Mika says "both have fun", but when we have this at last minutes: 21/24 Dwarves vs 7/9 Pistoliers.
Pistoliers would win from far, and Dwarves only if Pistoliers go close combat.
From what point of view is a "good game"?

I ask: is the last fight really important for you, if you have a good battle or not? I always(!!) knew when my opponent was better than me and I never had a problem to go in CC with my archers when my opponent deserves the victory. I think I had this "problem" with Flak. We had a very long battle on the griessburg town map. I had the better army I think but Flak killed everything. At least I had 8/9 pistoliers with b.o.w. he ~15 infantry left. I wouldn't had a problem to kill him by shooting/banner but I threw the banner away and go in CC. Why? Because the game was very fun and he was better than me. You shouldn't judge a game with the last battle, you should see the game in all.

Same thing happened, when I played Ghabry years ago. We had really cool battles but at the end, we took the last 1-2 regiments and made a CC, cause we knew who was better and who is the winner.

It makes no sense to pitch on single game situations to decide if they are lame or not, it's more important to play in that way, that it feels good. I also used firemage with teleport and meteor or vampire with teleport and zombie spell, but there is a different, if you use it to kill one regiment after another from you opponent with it or if you destroy his catapult and then attack with your other regiments.

So my request is: come away from playing for winning, enjoy the game, it's great!! (believe me)

PS: At least I want to point olly out. I think he plays since years with this disposition and if you try to play same against him I promise you, you will have much more fun...
PPS: If this ruleset is really good for a tournament depends on the player and is hard to decide, but I think everyone should see it more as something who can open your mind and perhaps one or two think about it and don't play lame even if there is another ruleset played and they will lose, when they don't use 2 grails and a lot of archers....

(*)most time

[Mikademus]

Yeah, I think that summaries the gist of it: anyone with a focus on "rules" and "winning" will not enjoy the game, especially in a small community as we are. I think we're sort of a gentlemen's club, where sportsmanship and "good one, sir!" are more important than to tally another one on the scoreboard. Especially since one will not win any larger fame and glory here--again, we're a small community--but everyone knows everyone and one will be so much more appreciated and admired for playing a fair, good and enjoyable game