Jump to content

Smashmouth CAV tournament


Super Jag
 Share

Recommended Posts

I've begun this thread after discussion on the Warmaster rules. It is intended to provide an alternate form of CAV on CAV gameplay. Thus all the playtesting has proven that the following format has great potential. Basically all the core rules of the game are used as normal. We've not utilized optional rules to date.

 

Sorry about the name... I've not actually come up with anything better yet. If nothing else it tells you what it is, which is virtually a toe to toe fight (except for the fact that someone might field a handful of IFM specialists like Sultans... hehehe).

 

Smashmouth Rules:

1. Player gets 2,000 points to purchase any combination of CAV units (CAV only) including upgrades, and/or equipment swaps. Sections of 4 must be followed.

2. Players will play HEAD TO HEAD matches on a 4x4 foot table.

3. Each game has a 45 minute time limit (finish the last turn).

4. Ideally 3-4 games total will be played per gaming session (swap opponents each new game).

5. WIN/LOSS records will be kept (primary factor for determing tournament winner). In event of a tie, points differential will be used. Full point value of an enemy CAV are gained by destroying it and rendering it beyond 50% DT = 1/2 point value (i.e.: combat inneffectiveat the end of the game). No other points can be attained.

 

 

Here's the feedback so far on the playtesting and why this format shows promise.

 

a. Great creativity and fun deciding on what and how to field a 2,000 point force. So far we've seen fun and success from 2 ACE/ACE Superheavies, to 6 stock units (that's right... 2 initiative cards), to themed sections like 4 maxed out Khans, or my personal favorite, the BUG SQUAD.

 

b. Games are fast but long enough to provide plenty of action.

 

c. Multiple opponents can be played in the old fashion way... mano y mano (as opposed to the ganging up on one player problem Warmasters have).

 

d. Scoring is simple and practical.

 

Anyways... that's the nuts and bolts of it. Honestly, it has been great so far and between me and a couple trusted friends we have picked it apart to find flaws, but evidence points to it as being a great alternative to Warmasters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 16
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

BTW.... forgot to mention that I've been considering adjusting the initiative card system a bit for this format. Instead of 1 card per section (4 units), I would like to see how 1 card PER UNIT would work.

Don't thin kit would work, because of things like Chainlock, defensive fire, etc..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW.... forgot to mention that I've been considering adjusting the initiative card system a bit for this format. Instead of 1 card per section (4 units), I would like to see how 1 card PER UNIT would work.

I wouldnt do that. However what I would do is require people to buy at lest one intitive card with there points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However what I would do is require people to buy at lest one intitive card with there points.

 

Huh? Not sure what you're getting at. Personally I think it's BAD POLICY to "require" players to make mandatory purchases with their force points. The beauty of the format as it is does allow for someone to "voluntarily" buy inititiative cards already. Besides the one they get automatically for have a force (4 or less) then they could improve their initiative odds with that extra card.

 

That's something we've not playtested yet. Should be an interesting factor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Refreshing this thread.....

 

Okay, so here's some feedback on this tournament I created. Thank you to Spire for also helping iron out wrinkles and experiment with variations on the format. The result is that it has proven to be a rather popular format in our respective areas. Here's some tidbits to think about:

 

Players say they enjoy the straight up game play with out having to worry about objectives and such.

 

I have been working out the wrinkles with the "combat ineffective" scoring format, while Spire has been testing out the damage track scoring method. IMO the combat ineffective system works better because it's simpler, practical, and makes sense (destroyed unit = full points, more than 50% DT's at end of game = half points). This also eliminates the time wasted by players trying to write down or track points scored during the game (remember... we're on 45-60 minute time limit). Also, with regards to the '70 Dictator, the owning player cannot throw away potential opponent points with his overdrive function. Those realistically are self induced damage points that could potentially lead to the unit becoming combat ineffective, thus resulting in 50% points to opponent.

 

The "rounding" factor of decimal points has already proven to make the difference between a win and a loss. I.E.: the losing player received fewer points at the end of a damage track scoring system simply because the values were rounded properly (down) than they should have received by just using the original value of the destroyed units. Because repairs were involved the original value could no longer be used as additional damage tracks were inflicted.

 

As a compliment to the CAV game system, the variety of force compositions has consistently proven to allow for evenly matched games. Therefore, players with reasonable choices and decent tactics have done well, and even won games despite the appearance of getting whooped.

 

Players are catching on to the tactic of bringing 5 units (two sections = two initiative cards). The catch... is which one unit is in it's own section? Once that unit is destroyed, the extra initiative card is lost. Also, the extra unit limits total upgrades. The other common force composition is a standard section of four units with solid upgrades.

 

Basically... this format works. If you're looking for something fresh and sensible, give this a try. You really don't need to tweak the format, but of course, if you do then please submit feedback. I know as it stands this could be a standardized tournament across the BL program without change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you don't mind I'm going to try to set up a mini Tourney day at the Asylum with in the next month. I'd like to use this format since we want to run one day events.

 

I really can't see anything that you guys haven't already thought of and it looks great!

 

Though I think we need to come up with a better name.

 

Patrick "Mad Pat" Haughton

Dallas Texas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Though I think we need to come up with a better name.

Uh... you're absolutely right. I have to chuckle whenever anyone says that. Honestly, as the topic subtitle infers, a better name does need to be made. Gunslinger was a thought, but my understanding is that's a CBT term already. Open to suggestions.

 

If you don't mind I'm going to try to set up a mini Tourney day at the Asylum with in the next month. I'd like to use this format since we want to run one day events.

Go right ahead... that's why I posted it for everyone. Like I said, you should be able to just use it as is. However, should you feel the need to experiment, then please give us feedback. Mostly it comes down to preferences. E.G.: I prefer the "combat ineffective" scoring system and Spire prefers the "damage track" scoring system. In the end, all that really matters is the enjoyment of the games and encouraging players to continue supporting it.

 

Let us know how it goes if you run the tournament.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...