but be warned.you may have won the battle but you will lose the war:D ...............thats all for now from OoC[ag]

Amen ooc. [ag] <--- Doesnt that look cooler than this---> (O

Why do the scenarios or even entire campaign series have to be balanced?

You mean it can't be weighted towards one side or the other? perhaps to represent non-game aspects such as logistics, travel times, medical and magical support...

Let's play a series of games, I get 300 points, you get 200.

Wanna play?

Now, I don't mind different things being tried out, to make the games more interesting... Things like giving the Defender the Gatehouse to use for instance. But then, giving the Defender the Gatehouse, time to set up, and bonus points just for sitting there.

It's just a little much. Especially if the entire campaign hinged on the last scenario, which this one seemed to, though we don't know that for sure.

Now, here's a for instance, a good way of representing different strenghts and weaknesses without automatically giving a win to one side or the other. It's a Battletech scenario, which I originally took from a book, and then kind of extrapolated up and used to run at Cons with the Battletech Minis rules (plays on standard gaming terrain w/o using the hex system).

Anyway, the basic story behind the scenario is that one side is the remnants of a Heavy/Assault group that is separated from their main force. Their job is to escape, and relink with the main force.

The other side is a Light/Medium scouting group, the only force from the other side able to get to this unit in time to stop it from relinking.

The Assault group gets fewer points to use then the Light/Medium. I played with it some, it was anywhere from a 2/1 ratio to a 3/2 ratio of points. I got it hammered down pretty well, from experience to balance the scenario pretty well.

So, they get fewer points, but on the other hand, they have an easier objective. They don't have to kill anything, all they have to do is escape.

The Med/Light group of course is a larger force but they actually have to engage to win.

Like I said, I played this scenario a lot, and once I got a good ratio of the points it got to be very balanced, even though one side was more powerful than the other, it would basically come down to the positioning of the two forces and the tactics they'd use to either try to engage or escape engagement.

Now, on the surface, this is an unbalanced scenario, one side is noticeably more powerful than the other, but their goals are different.

This is the kind of thing WK needs to do... Offset an advantage with a disadvantage. Not say, OK, the defender gets these 3 advantages, and the attacker, well, good luck.

The whole point of storyline tournaments is to give the players a chance to affect the storyline If they're just going to write the scenario so that one side is almost guaranteed to win, they might as well just release it as official fiction, and let us play regular games. I don't think that's an issue, it seems like the Vampire campaign is more even, and I hope the KI/EL one is also.

Then again, do you want storyline issues to revolve around an 'equal' balance? Or should there be some inertia?

Does the Fellowship of the Ring have any sort of equal chance? Are they in some sort of balanced scenario? I think not. :D

While no one knows if the scenarios themselves, or if they were weighed differently (i.e. some more valuable than others) I would expect that the Atlantis Guild has to work for it. They have to truely be outstanding to have that sort of impact.

The current Necropolis Sect campaign is obviously much more balanced. Because of regardless who wins, the Sect doesn't change in relationship to anybody else. It's purely internal dynamics.

At any rate, there will be less than perfect scenarios, and various stumbling blocks. Unlike the vast majority of other companies, Wizkid's makes them. And since I see almost no other scenarios even attempted by the bulk of Mage Knight players, we have very little ground to stand on and point fingers. ;)

Equal doesn't exist, but you can get close to it. And I did just give an example of how one game, where the two forces are far from equal, can still make an interesting and challenging game where the outcome is in question and determined by the players, not the scenario. There are many possibilities of different ways to represent different units and different sides strengths and weaknesses WITHOUT handing victory to one side or another.

That is a novel dealing with a very specific situation where there are no good courses of action, and they take the best one they can find. We're talking about a competitive game, where the outcome is supposed to be in question and the players are supposed to determine it. As I said, if WK (playing the role of the author) wanted to determine the outcome, they should have come out and done so by releasing it as a story on their site. And I'll reiterate again, I don't think they were trying to direct the outcome, I think it was just poor design choices and not enough playtesting.

I could bring up the Alamo, or the story of the 300 also, but it has no bearing on what we're talking about.

Of course. I did state that we have no certain idea of how each scenario was scored. Now, if that's true that the Guild did need a large margin of victory across all 4 scenarios to win, then the situation is even more egregious as they needed a large margin of victory across 4 scenarios, one of which was fairly even, one skewed towards the Guild, and two Skewed towards the Rebels.

This is an invalid argument for several reasons. First, we can come up with all the scenarios we want, and many people, in fact, have. However, we have no power to write scenarios that will be played nationally and can affect the storyline.

Secondly, saying, because we haven't created scenarios means we have no right to judge someone else's is and always will be as invalid an argument as saying someone can't judge a work of art because they couldn't have created it. I have no capability of making movies, if I did, they would be bad. But that doesn't mean I can't make valid judgements about movies that I do see.

Honestly, ask yourself... If every scenario and campaign that WK came up with was as skewed as this one, would you continue to play in them? I had fun, at the local level, playing in, and running these events. I am frustrated that the outcome was almost predetermined by the scenarios and not by the players, however, if that continues with their other campaigns, I'm going to push towards having our venue not bother and just run regular tournament games.

The KI/EL will be the test, as that's the next major battle between two factions, that involves primarily Rebellion and Conquest scenarios.

Sure we can judge. We can play or not play as we like.

If you don't like how Wizkid's has handled things, then you certainly should not shoulder anything you don't enjoy, to play.

And you don't have to.

All I've heard for the past month is a lot of people complaining that every single last scenario in the campaign was unbalanced, skewed, or otherwise unfair. Yet the actual percentages I've seen posted were within a few percentage points.

I've tried my hand at scenario creation for a number of games. It's quite hard, especially on the more open ended systems such as Mage Knight. You'll notice that more and more figure restrictions are being found. Even 'recreations' in wargames are vulnerable to lopsided and non historical results. No matter how relentlessly and ruthlessly researched and tested and... biased.

But the scenarios are also played outside of tournament and Marquee events. In my own home, for example. Wizkid's is stuck with writing scenarios that can be played by anybody with any collection of figures. So they must be averaged towards the casual and average player. Especially since they state that tournament play is a relatively small proportion of their players.

The "professional" player is likely to have all sorts of figures which would allow him or her to bust the scenario conditions all to pot.

They may stumble, they may have errors, it may even work exactly as they expect. But until someone is willing to provide an alternative, a little slack should be cut.

In the shrinking world of gaming, any company that puts out anything that is remotely a step above utter trash gets my vote.

Anyhow...

Inertia scenarios: Storyline issues should be up for casual alteration then? A 15 year old storyline kingdom is suddenly 50/50 likely to be conquered? By a relatively small invasion force?

LOtR: Many wargames are just as unbalanced. Your example of the Alamo is a classic. I've played about 10 different versions in nearly as many game systems. Dying with style is difficult to pull off. You can still 'lose' the scenario and end up a 'winner'.

Balance/Playtesting issue: Discussed above, and worthy of a thread in it's own right. :)

hey im glad of there victory , but it was no surprize to me....i mean they are the bpr!!!!!!!

feh. They didnt win, Wizkids bent it in their favor. feh. And Andreus is so sad now... :(

The point is, I want interesting and balanced scenarios to play in. Everybody does. If WK were to continue to set up campaigns and tournaments like this, people are going to lose interest. Thankfully it does appear that they have learned from that.

I just find it unfathomable that people would WANT to play in scenarios that are so in favor of one side or another. My earlier question (which went unanswered) about wanting to play a series of 200 vs 300 point games was intended to bring that out. I wouldn't want to play either side in a 200 to 300 standard HTH game - why would anybody? The victor gets an easy win, the loser saw it coming a mile away... WooHoo, let's go again! :)

I'm not whining or complaining because the faction that I like lost a battle, or because I didn't get a Gilgarsh, or anything like that. I want WK to succeed, and I believe that this scenario was poorly planned, and if they continue to be poorly planned, is going to hurt WizKids in the long run.

All but the last. Which was as I recall 33% in favor of the defender. A pretty wide margin considering that there are NO restictions on army construction at all. Everybody was free to bring anything they wanted to the table.

And, if the scenario was played with the Gatehouse - a free 112 points. Plus the guaranteed 5 or 6 turns of control of the bridge, that's a 242 point swing just for picking that side. Minimum. In other words, the AG player had to kill almost 250 points of units without losing a single piece of their own, just to break even on points. That's not just people complaining, that is a large mathematical advantage just for showing up.

I consider all of the others to be relatively balanced, or only slightly skewed. Even the infamous Tower Scenario, if played allowing the Defender to set up extra Castle pieces, which was, officially allowed - was fairly even.

It takes lots of playtesting. Which, based on this and past scenarios that WK has generated, I'm pretty sure doesn't happen. If you'll recall the BT scenario I mentioned, I very specifically stated that it took a lot of playtesting to get it to the point of being well balanced. It takes work, but the end result is interesting scenarios that set up effects and restrictions that don't really work for pick up games - that are fun to play because they're different than just saying, OK I get 200 points and you get 200 points, and because the outcome is actually in question and not decided by whoever wrote the scenario.

Nothing is perfect, there can be no absoluate balance. Not even in Chess where each side has the exact same starting position and the exact same army, the white player automatically has an advantage because they go first.

Total and complete balance is not possible, but it is possible to get it close.

Does anyone remember the UL Marquee scenario, where a very specific army within the rules of the game could basically not be beaten without a lot of luck.

I appreciate everything they do to support MK. When they make mistakes, they need to know about them, so that they're not repeated in the future. And as far as alternatives, nobody is even allowed to provide one, let alone be capable of it. The only people that can directly affect the MK storyline is WizKids. They may allow players to indirectly affect it through tournaments, but the point is they always get the final say.

I never said that they should be up for "casual alteration", they should be up for WK to decide and no one else. But why pretend to give the players control of the story with poorly tested and balanced scenarios?

And, by the way, had AG won, it would not have meant the instant end of the BPR as a faction and nation, it simply would have opened the door for a larger invasion.

This post is the last I'm going to say on this subject until and unless we end up in a similar situation with the EL/KI campaign. I've said my peace... Have nothing else to add.

I just find it unfathomable that people would WANT to play in scenarios that are so in favor of one side or another. My earlier question (which went unanswered) about wanting to play a series of 200 vs 300 point games was intended to bring that out. I wouldn't want to play either side in a 200 to 300 standard HTH game - why would anybody? The victor gets an easy win, the loser saw it coming a mile away... WooHoo, let's go again!

They key phrase there is 'standard'. In a standard game with standard scoring the answer is "no one". We're not talking about standard games though, but scenarios.

The first scenario I believe was overwhelmingly won by the Atlantis Guild. At that point, there should have been two scenarios to choose from. One if the messenger is stopped, and one if he's not.

There wasn't though. This is the oddest part of their offering for me. My actions are irrelevant on a per scenario basis. The second scenario is a fixed occurance. Especially in a 'storyline' event.

Look at the apparently lauded 'balanced' scenarios for the Necropolis Sect. Either you will steal the magical doo-dad, or you will not. Yet the second scenario is assumed as if a victory is irrelevant. Where is the 'storyline' in that?

Anyhow, my girlfriend and I, (amusingly enough, I play the Elemental League the majority, and she does the Necropolis Sect) are slowly working our way through the campaign pack that came with the Conquest. We'll see how they do. :)

Adios, and good gaming. :D

I would play a 200 vs 300 point battle if i was allowed to place 4 pieces of terrain and the other none with no restrictions on where i'm placing them.

Essentially a small force of defenders has to defend against a larger force. The placement of the terrain makes the balance as the defenders obviously know the terrain.

I went the the scenarios because i was in a bad mood at the time and was mad because a lot of people were complaining. I know that the rules made the battles unfair. I also know that wizkids didin't really playtest the battles. Hey it is the first campaign.

I as playing a 4 person 200 point battle yesterday. The store owner just brought the VSD to the table. Everybody was okay with that. Now I know that many people would cry out Unfair right about now but it was fair. My army took on tthe dragon while taking out 2 three unit formations+ 4 loners. It was fair.

okay so a balanced scenario could be

A 400 point attacking force is approaching your villiage. The Townsfolk recruit as many people into protecting thier villiage but can't recruit the same amount of units as the approaching force. The folk hastily bulid a small wall protecting the side the enemy is approaching. their 300 point army is to guard the villiage as well as possible. Unfoutuantly, a priest comes into town who says he is being chased by the attackers. You must now protect the villiage and the priest

Attacker gets 400 points and no terrain
Defender gets 300 points and 4 small walls, 4 houses and 4 rubble. Each wall must be joined with another wall. The rubble must be placed on one side of the wall and the houses on the other side.

The unit which represents the piece has no attack, speed of 8 and defense of 17. It may only be given a move action. Pushing rules don't apply but you may move it then it may move again but it would have to rest two turns. The units starts touching the wall on the side with the buildings.

The game ends after 50 minutes or the priest is killed. if the game time runs out the defenders win. If the priest is killed the attackers win.


Now tell me which side you want to play on?

OK, so I lied. :)

Of course. And I recognize the difference. I guess, thinking about it in terms of a tournament - the outcome is not guaranteed, but much less in doubt the way that last scenario was set up - which makes it less fun. For me anyway...

That would have been ideal, and I'll definitely second this idea for being a really cool thing they could do. It wouldn't even be that hard to coordinate.

Question, though: Would each venue determine separately which scenario they run second, third and so on, or would it be determined by the overall results and be standardized for each venue.

Well sure, especially if the Magical doo dad is very powerful, whoever has it would definitely want to use it, and so whoever has it for the second scenario should make a difference.

I may start a thread talking about this kind of thing in Dreams & Desires... maybe WK will notice, and we could actually have a chance of seeing something like it done.

I've skimmed through them, but haven't read them in detail or tried playing any of them yet. Good luck..

Oh, I'll be around. :)

I was looking forward to playing AG in the week 4 scenario. It looked like a nice challenge & being able to pull out a win would have been a victory in my book. Maybe it's my roleplaying background, but I enjoy scenarios where one side is fighting an uphill battle. I didn't end up playing because I had to fill in at the last minute for the Warlord running it due to personal circumstances. Everyone had fun whichever side they played.

What I don't like is the prize issue. For those who are playing for the prizes (whether it's a main issue, or just a side issue with those players) it's not a good idea playing for the disadvantaged side. Especially in Week 3 with the huge 1st prize.

While they could just drop prize support for these tourmanents (just issuing the Participants prize), I think there is a better idea. Just make sure that both sides have prizes. In week 4 you'd have a BPR winner & an AG winner. You could have duplicate prizes or not. Duplicate prizes mean there is no favoritism. However, you could give the slightly better prize to the disadvantaged side to encourage players to play the underdog.

David A. Blizzard