Sunday, 5 October 2014

Let's Talk WoffBoot IX

Too early you say? Come off it: you can already buy advent calendars in Tesco, this is ample time to talk about Spring 2015.

The Bloody Nine

With the help of my lovely assistant CTRL-V, I'll replicate the rules/proposed rules structure from last year.


We traditionally aim for weekends after Easter: 11-12 April? 18-19 April? 25-26th April? 2-3rd May? (bank holiday)

18-19 April
  • Friday - starts at noon: 0-2 battles each
  • Saturday - full day: 2-4 battles each
  • Sunday - concludes at noon: 1 battle each


0. VENUE: 

Kasfunatu Towers


Round Robin tournament, with players being matched according to availability.

2. SIZE: 

  • Armies will be 1,600 points maximum.
  • Lords/Heroes <= 50% (of which Lords <=25%)
  • Other percentages as rulebook.
Corrected change: 1,600pts (8th edition) - to be reviewed if 9th edition is released with enough lead-time.


You may bring multiple lists for one army, and play them based on some logic which must be documented; and not based on your pairing.
Example you have 3 lists: A,B,C and 5 games to play

  • Viable options (without knowing opponents):
  • you elect to play battles using A,B,C,B,A or A,A,B,B,C etc
  • you roll a dice on 1/2/3 play A, 4/5 play B 6 play 6
  • you roll a d5 and select the army at that position from AABBC eg B; then next game roll a d4 an select army at position from AABC etc

Comment: I didn't like this method for myself and won't be using it again. As it is an optional rule, I see no reason to deny others - but given that only two generals exercised this rule (including myself) last time, could it be tidied away?


Each game will be by default a Pitched Battle (although other scenarios can be played by mutual consent).


VPs awarded as per the rulebook, with the addition of the 'Fleeing Units' house rule:

  • Active and >=50%: 0%
  • Fleeing and >=50%: 25%
  • Active and <50%: 50%
  • Fleeing and <50%: 75%
  • Destroyed/Fled off the table: 100%


The following scoring system to be used:

  • Difference in VPs ("VPs you scored" minus "VPs scored by opponent) divided by "VPs scored by the winner": this gives a result for each bout between -1 and +1.
  • Each general's average is then found (and 1 is added to make them all positive numbers) which can be used to determine a winner.
Comment: this may be a precarious applecart, but our scoring method seems a little complicated. Can we consider something like this table below? (ripped off a regular tournament pack, and modified to 1600pts)

After each game, you work out the VP difference, and the numbers just tot up.

VP difference
BP - Win
BP - Loss


As standard 2D5 power dice for magic phase (although 2D4 or 2D6 as an option by mutual agreement).

Standard 2D6 power dice for magic phase, as stated in the rulebook.

Proposed change: shall we just go with 2D6 as standard? I don't think anyone went underpowered in the last 'Boot, and if we do go for bigger armies, there's no reason not to.


Opening ceremony staggered (as players arrive), with full disclosure of army lists. Units are identified, questions answered and special rules explained including magic items.


We have now captured all the Grudges in the Great Book of Grudges, although how did we agree this will work?

  • Do you get 100VPs for settling a Grudge, with then feeds into the Match Points spreadsheet?
  • Do Grudges stack?
    i.e. will East get 300VPs if he beats Kasfunatu, or just 100VPs? (and a warm feeling of satisfaction)
  • Can you have multiple Grudges?
    i.e. will Stylus get 100VPs each battle if he beats both Kasfunatu and East? (could totally happen, probably)

Comment: the proposed 'Boasts' rule (below) could feed into this, so we only have one potential source of bonus points per battle


Copied directly from the 'Rumble In the Bronx' tournament pack:

Each player is to nominate one of the following boasts that they feel they can achieve during the game. These six available boasts are simple objectives that may each only be used once throughout the tournament. Scoring is simple, achieve your boast and receive [100VPs?]. Fail to achieve your boast and your opponent receives [100VPs?]. The boasts available to be chosen are as listed below.


Players achieve this boast if the opponent's general is not on the table at the conclusion of the game. Generals who have fled off the table count as "assassinated" for the purposes of this scenario.


Players achieve this boast if their general remains on the table at the conclusion of the game.


Players achieve this boast if they have one non-fleeing unit completely within the opponent's deployment zone at the conclusion of the game.

Hold Out

Players achieve this boast if their opponent does not have any non-fleeing enemy units completely within their deployment zone at the conclusion of the game.

Contain power

Players achieve this boast if the opponent’s most expensive unit (as written on their Army List) is not on the table at the conclusion of the game. In the case of a player having two equal "most expensive" units, nominate one of these units at the start of the game.


Players achieve this boast if they hold more table quarters than the opponent at the conclusion of the game. A quarter is held by having more non-fleeing units completely within it than your opponent does. Quarters with an equal number of units within will be considered held by no one.


  • With five games to play and six boasts, this gives a player a little flexibility (i.e. if they have a small army and don't think they can manage 'Reconnoitre')
  • I'd suggest that boasts be concealed from opponents until the end of the game.
  • If the have a Grudge, that you *must* play the 'Assassinate' boast against the enemy general (if you have more than one Grudge, you can pick).
  • I guess we'd also have to lose the 100VPs rule for killing an enemy general, as this is now a boast.

Players & armies

  • East: Tomb Kings
  • Kasfunatu: Dark Elves
  • Kraken: Warriors of Chaos
  • Leofa: [Undeclared]
  • Stylus: Wood Elves [or Goblins... something in green anayway]
  • Yalfrezi: [Undeclared - Daemons?]


  1. 2 - I'm for this. It's a good size of battle, not too big to take ages but still enough to try out some snazzy options

    7. Sounds good to me. It's pretty hard to get many spells off even with 2d6, so may as well give our poor wizards a decent chance.

    10. I'd really like to give this a go

  2. 0) I can't do 11th/12th Apr.

    2) I think we all agreed 1600 if we're still on 8th, but 1200 if 9th.

    3) I also had no joy, but let's retain the option.

    6) Sweet Jesu, really?? Has the scoring system not had enough scrutiny and testing? What does it matter if it's complex (not that it is particularly) given that a spreadsheet works it all out? I offered to report scores under our system in a familiar VP20 way last time; people said no. Simple fact is that this, like the method in the book, doesn't take into account the level of attrition like ours does.

    7) I'm fine with 2d6 if we're at 1600pts, but let's retain the historic 'Boot rules if sticking at 1200pts.

    9) Everyone wanted to include the grudges in the points and now we have a system you want to replace it? Or do I misunderstand: how are you proposing the Boasts "feeding in to" this?

    10) No preference really. Has pros and cons. Re scoring though: no penalty (other than not gaining the possible extra points) for not achieving.

    1. 9) Clarification: I'm not saying Grudges need to be replaced, but if we adopt Boasts as well, then we're introducing two different ways of gaining 100pts 'off-table'.
      I think we should only have access to one bonus per game, so that would mean:
      1) Sticking with Grudges only
      2) Using Boasts instead
      3) Using Boasts, but a 'grudging' player has to use a particular type of boast (like 'Assassination') for his grudge match - my preference.

    2. 10 - I agree on no penalty. It would feel frustrating, I think, unless you both knew each others' objectives. Then at least you've got the tactical jollies of aiming to pinch stuff, and even then, it feels a bit miserly.

      9. How about keep the existing Boasts and add 'Settle the Grudge' as a repeatable option? So for 100 VPs, your objective in that match is 'beat the other guy', you can only use it against someone you have a Grudge against, but you can opt to use it more than once.

    3. 9. What if someone elects not to use their 'Grudge' boast against someone they have a grudge against? Does the grudge get wiped from the 'historical' record, or does it not count, because they picked the 'Assassination' boast instead?

    4. Also 9. Kasfunatu suggested having a few more Boast options, so the player has a wider selection. Here are a few more pillaged from tournament packs:
      *Surgical strike!*
      Destroy more special and rare choices from your opponent’s army than you lose yourself. If the kill count is a draw the mission is still failed.

      *King of the Castle*
      Have more buildings Garrisoned than your opponent at the end of the game.

    5. Kraken, trouble with that is no one will choose Settle the Grudge as it's harder to achieve than other boasts but for the same advantage. I say keep grudges as we currently have them, and add boasts as well, but half the bonus to 50pts (or in multiples of 50pts depending on how many times you've been grudged by that player - eg there are some triple grudges out there at the moment)

    6. ...Especially as those boasts were probably written for 2400pt tournies anyway.

      I like Surgical Strike but not KotC. However, very happy in principle to increase the pool of boasts so it's harder for your opponent to guess what you're doing.

  3. 0: Absolutely - open house as always... be prepared to debrief!
    1: All good/No comment
    2: 1600pt in 8th (agreed) - rumours imply we still will be on 8th in April (or too soon to change)
    3: I plan to do this again, so thanks for not vetoing
    4: All good/No comment
    5: All good/No comment
    6: Personally I'd rather something simpler, but I do understand why mathematically the current system has merit.
    7: Agree with Kraken and suggestion - makes sense - I think we all did 2d6 last time anyway
    8: All good/No comment
    9: Hmm... not sure how this interacts with 10.. more below.
    10: Love this idea... more below

    I think that there should be more boast options. If we all play 5 games, I think the system would be improved if there were more than one unused to provide more variety at end of weekend? I think it only needs a couple more... but choose 5 from 8 would be good (I believe).

    My initinal two suggestions:
    Grab the flag (capture more standards than you lose)?
    Keep power (achieve boast if your opponent scores 0% of your most expensive unit)

    I am not sure about forcing assassinate if you have a grudge; but do think grudges (if they remain) have to hook into this system.
    How about a grudge let's you choose an extra boast?
    I could see this working as:
    A grudge = an extra free boast selected from all cards (can be used as a boast in another game)
    A grudge = an extra unplayed boast card played (*preferred.. ie you use more over the weekeend)

    Stacking grudges could just be extra boasts (ie granting extra potential)?

    I agree with Leofa that these should be extra points (and not negative if you fail)

    Personally I would not remove the 100vp for killing the general in all games, and replace with the assassinate grudge that can be used once. To me: that is a bonus.

    1. 0) ... and now that's on the internet forever

      2) I'll make the change - I forgot we'd agreed to go to 1600 in 8th ed. (may 8th ed. never die!)

      6) The current scoring system seems very precise (and I guess that was more important for 1000pt games, where every point counts - this may matter less as our points increase).

      The advantage with a simpler system is i) ease - everyone can work out the score right after the battle; ii) clarity - a 14:6 battle seems easier to comprehend (at least for me) than a 0.46 general's score; iii) it gives all protagonists a sense of progress - totting up scores, rather than rounding out an average. It also removes the negative scores (which seem worse than getting a low number).

      Given that, no matter what scoring system we've trialled, the top general is always the one who's won the most battles by the greatest margins, the question is: what would be the most entertaining system over the weekend (as it is, after all, about the fun).

      7) I'll correct to 2D6 - that 2D5 rules was more honoured in the breach than in the observance in the last few WoffBoots anyway.

      9-10) Yes, I broadly agree with all of this.

      - 'Grab the flag' - maybe use a Fortitude score, rather than just standards (those sneaky Wood Elves don't use m/any standards - might be an unfair advantage)

      I like the idea of giving a 'Gruding' player an extra unplayed Boast - that seems to be the best union of the two concepts.

      Although I think we shouldn't stack grudges - a grudge should be counted as a single grudge, whether it be to the power of one or three (bragging rights the only benefit).

      Good point about 100VPs for killing General - that just makes the 'Assassination' boast a 'doubling down', which works fine.

      Agree with Leofa about no negative points, just bonuses.

      I think Boasts should be the full 100VPs though - we'll be playing closer to the full tournament points, and anything less doesn't seem enough to make an impact (or be wroth paying attention to).

    2. 0,2,7: cool

      6: I am happy to try the 14:6 approach

      Can you explain fortitude?
      I am happy without stacking grudges... extra boast and bragging works for me.
      Great on general points remaining and negative points removed.
      Support the 100vps for boast.

    3. 6) The sample table above was for a 2400pt tournament, so if we were to go with this, dividing the VP difference by 2/3 and having a 1600pt cap would modify it for our use.

      9) As stated in the 'Blood and Glory' scenario: "An army's fortitude is equal to the current number of standards in the army (inc BSB) plus two for the general.
      - so maybe that doesn't really work for Capture the Flag, since it just muddies in with Assassination

      Perhaps your original 'capture more standards' works better. If an army is advantaged in this scenario (i.e. Wood Elves, or any gunline army), then an opposing general doesn't have to choose that boast (the benefit of having a broader selection).

      And if we make it that a banner must be 'captured' (i.e. enemy destroyed/broken in combat, rather than just destroyed by shooting/magic or fled), then it forces units to get close and risk their own standards (which maybe a gunline army wouldn't fancy).

      I'm sure there was an older-edition a rule that captured standards could be recaptured if the capturing enemy unit was, in turn, destroyed in combat. Sounds fun (if complicated).

    4. I just don't understand the need to change the rules etc all the time. For example, I can't remember whose idea the grudges were (not mine) but I like them now. And of course Kas will agree with you on them not stacking as he is the most grudged against player. The scoring was tried and tested and can be presented to players in a VP20-style format as we wish (there is no need for negative numbers under the current system. And averages were calculated so one boot could be compared with the next. Again, something that was asked for.) - it wasn't last time as players said they weren't bothered. For what it's worth I agree with Kas about Assassinate and keeping the usual VPs for general-slaying. But if you're talking about scaling down the VPs for a potential VP20 system then it's a contradiction that you wouldn't do the same to boasts' VPs. My vote is still to keep grudges and boasts separate but at 50VPs each.

      Anyway, I'm out. Said my piece. Decide what you will and let me know what the rules will be. #neverlikeddemocracyanyway

    5. We shouldn't change anything without consensus - and we do have 7 months to continue arguing.

      My thought about not stacking the grudges is that it disadvantages everyone (not just the stacked-against player) by giving one player a potential triple-bonus on a single game (and for an outcome they were trying to get anyway - victory).

      I don't think scaling down the VP-20 table (to allow someone in a 1600pt game to score higher than 17) is the same as scaling down the Boast VPs. 100pts seems a pretty standard bonus (e.g. the 'killing the general' rule). For example, the tournament I took the Boasts rule from was 2000pts, so it's not dependant on 2400pt games.

  4. Can we add the 2/3rd May as option?

    I always think of it as a May day event (although I don't think we have actually done it on May Day weekend for some time, the last three weren't anyway).

    1. Added as an option - with the caveat that my Bank Holiday weekends are usually spoken for (even if I don't know what I'm going to be doing at the time!)

    2. No worries, the fact that we have not played on those probably means we won't... but wanted to add option :)

  5. I think 25/26th is my preferred. How would that fair for others?

    1. Should be fine, although my family are currently talking about visiting Sweden in May - Tom is over in Denmark for a stag do, and will come up to visit. Don't know any dates for this yet...

    2. Yep, 25/26 April looks good for me.

  6. Of course, we haven't discussed one of the most important aspects of the WoffBoot: the Friday Night Feature Film!

    My current vote is for Predator or Point Break.

    1. Predator! Then Predator 2, Predators and AVP. What? It's still better than Prometheus.

    2. Which one do you think I'll prefer?

    3. No, I think he means "which one do you want to watch first?".

    4. Got to love a bit of Hot Fuzz and the Power of Grayskull! :)

    5. I'm changing my vote: Krull or Hawk the Slayer?

    6. Beastmaster I, II and III. And then Red Sonja.

    7. Conan the Barbarian & Conan the Destroyer.

    8. ...and Kal Drogo the Barbarian. Of course.

    9. And I'd put that ridiculous-seeming new Hercules movie in as possible. I enjoyed it, anyway, although that covers a stygian depth of crap.

    10. Harryhausen films seem appropriate, given that he also spent his life playing with toy monsters: Jason and the Argonauts, Clash of the Titans, The 7th Voyage of Sinbad, The Golden Voyage of Sinbad, Sinbad and the Eye of the Tiger...

    11. Sinbad Lieutenant, Sinbad Santa, Sinbad City, A Touch of Sinbad, Sinbad vs Rocky: Eye of the Tiger 2 and Sinbad in the Rain.

    12. And Labyrinth.

      And Pan's Labyrinth.

    13. We're going to need a bigger Woffboot weekend.

      And Jaws.

    14. Of all those mentioned I currently only have:

      Point Break, Predator, Predator2, Predators, AVP, Labyrinth, Hot Fuzz

      So it any other wins the vote, someone will need to source the film.

  7. On the subject of house rules, here's an interesting post about combining 6th Ed and 8th Ed magic (and until I read it, I'd forgotten how good 6th Ed magic was).

    May be something to consider if End Times/9th Ed magic turns out as crazy as it seems

  8. You know, if these rumours turn out to be even half-true, we'd better enjoy ourselves in WoffBoot IX, because it's going to be a very interesting conversation for WoffBoot X...