Campaign - Proposed campaign rules for voting

[Tom]

Proposition 1. The battlefield looting rule.

A few of the scenarios seem very odd that they instantly end when one side flees the field, often denying the other side the ability to claim scenario objectives and giving a weird incentive for defenders to bottle early.

Option A:
When the battle ends due to only one side having no models left, the other side gets to claim any objectives left on the field.
Looters - If the defenders all flee then the remaining caskets are assumed to be captured by the attackers.
Border Dispute - If one side flees then their relic is automatically defiled (but as no individual did it nobody gets the D3 xp).
Sabotage - If the defender flees then the objective is automatically destroyed (but nobody gets the additional individual xp for wounding/destroying it).
Rescue Mission - If the defender flees then the captive is automatically freed.

Option B:
As above but only if the remaining player hasn't bottled yet.

Option C:
Keep it as the rule book.

Option D - slightly modified A, perhaps have it that the player must have a model within Xā€¯ (for now say 6ā€¯) of the crate/relic/whatever. This is to encourage the player to still try and achieve the objective, otherwise he may be tempted to sit back, ignore the objectives and just kill the other guy, at which point you may as well be playing the stand off scenario.

Please vote yes or no on A, B and C and we'll see what democracy does for us.

Or suggest another option!

Tallies:

A 1/3
B 3/3
C 0/3
D 1/2

[Tom]

A No
B Yes
C No

[JAC]

A no
B yes
C no

If both gangs are running then it stands to reason neither can gain which rules out a.

[Dave]

A yes
B yes
C no

D - slightly modified A, perhaps have it that the player must have a model within Xā€¯ (for now say 6ā€¯) of the crate/relic/whatever. This is to encourage the player to still try and achieve the objective, otherwise he may be tempted to sit back, ignore the objectives and just kill the other guy, at which point you may as well be playing the stand off scenario.

[Tom]

D - No.

Also changing my A vote to no as the bottle roll needs to mean something, and trying to achieve the objective before you bottle I think adds enough pressure to get it done quick to quell Daveā€™s concern.

[Dave]

In our game that would have meant you wouldnā€™t have scored anything extra for defiling my relic, and I would have got the full amount of creds for not having a defiled relic, which feels wrong given the number of guys you had left on the board, most of which were within a move or two of my relic when the game ended.

Having said that Iā€™m happy to go with B as it is better than the other two options, however I still think it will favour a playing safe tactic rather than taking risks and actually trying to achieve any given objective.

[Tom]

Yeah but I'd bottled. That's got to mean something and with Goliaths it doesn't seem to mean much running away!

[Dave]

Yeah you bottled first, but your guys kept their cool and carried on.

I do get what is being said but it does require both players to play to the spirit of the scenario.

[Tom]

I think if you hang back and try to kill off all the defenders there's a good chance you'll fail your bottle roll as well before they're all gone. Also most scenarios have the defender with home turf advantage and a bonus on their bottle roll.

[Grantcm]

I like option A, it certainly feels better than the rule book and keeps things simple.

If you have bottled but your guys have kept their cool to fight on it could be assumed that they would be rallied by the sight of the ememy fleeing or being killed off. For example with no one left to defend a relic, regardless of distance, they would be free to close in and defile it.