The Twin Arches (Autumn Conclave 2012) - December 1st, WHW

[Koval]

Apologies for the necro, but owing to my recent personal interest in 54mm, I should be able to manage both scales once things arrive and get assembled/painted.

So at the moment I'm a definite for 28mm and a "probably" for 54mm.

[MarcoSkoll]

Neat. As for the "necro", it's not exactly kicking a thread that's likely to remain inactive too much longer. I'm hoping to get the event pack out not too distantly after the September Conclave.

At absolute latest, I'm aiming for the start of October, to give two months before the event.

[Koval]

I realised my timing was a bit off not long after I posted. I was thinking somewhere between "this is meant to come after the September Clave, so I might as well get the ball rolling again", and "why did I just do that, the September Clave hasn't happened yet"

[RobSkib]

Depending on how well Saturday goes, I might be putting together a Kaede Mack warband. Can't keep a good Mack down

[MarcoSkoll]

So, with the September Conclave now gone, this is now looming on our schedule, so it's time to kick the organisation back into gear.

I apologise for the quantity of writing below, but it's as much your event as it is mine, so there are some questions to ask you guys.

~~~~~

Location:
I'm anticipating both Carthaxians and Dalthans at both scales. Because I feel this isn't an excuse to not play games (it certainly hasn't stopped Space Marine chapters trekking the length, breadth and depth of the galaxy in the name of throwing dice around), I'm handwaving the actual in-universe logistics of this to an extent.

Or rather, the logistics are likely to form an element of the plot, but before that's totally set out, I need to contact a couple of people for permission to use elements of their fluff for the day.
In whichever case, though it's likely that whatever the worlds used for the day will have a non-specific identity and location, being referred to by only codenames.

If people might prefer I'm less vague, then I can be. However, it's unlikely that I'll explicitly set goings on in the Dalthus sector (more likely, close nearby), as I have little desire to displease those members of the 28mm community who aren't sold on the idea of this event.

Scoring:
I've been musing over various possibilities here - while I certainly like contact cards for their potential to add to the background of the sector (and was impressed by Kaled using some of his as part of his persuasion attempt during the finale of "The Saint"), the issue here is that there isn't a single "the sector", as discussed above.
Also, with a potentially very large attendance, a very large number of contact cards will be needed, and I didn't find it all that fun trying to put as many as needed last time around.

The version of things Rob used at the event on Saturday (basically the GM allocating 3,2,1 points to their players dependent on the success of each, with the GM always scoring 3 themselves for their efforts) is obviously a lot simpler as regards actual set-up, if less fluffy. Still, given the scale and complexity of the contact card system for a dual scale event, I think something similar may the most practical option.
However, I'd want to widen the scoring gap, as while last time I ran a day, the player's score could change by anywhere from -4 to +7 from a game, the maximum 2 point difference of a 1,2,3 system did mean a lot of players with tied scores.

As I mentioned to a couple of people on the day, my interest has been piqued by some of the ideas in the Exterminatus 9 article "Shadows of Chaos" about having more overarching agendas for the attendees - the article gives examples like "Assassinate your faction leader", "deliberately mislead team mates" and "never use your true name" (which I think is supposed to apply as much to the player as the character!).
I'm not saying I'd use those examples, but adding in scoring for longer agendas (which might have to be partly down to honesty) could do something to widen that gap.

Any thought or preferences?

Finale:
I intend to do something similar to what I did last time around, but hopefully a little slicker. This is partly because it's the only way to be fair and let players of different scales both get onto the "winning table" - in that there will be two winning tables, one of either scale, the characters vying for control of whatever the eponymous "Twin Arches" of the event name might happen to be (wouldn't you like to know?).

Obviously, with the potential for more attendees, it's likely to outscale my finale from last time, even before taking into account that there will be two main tables. However, I currently only have the one GM - myself.

I've got three theories on how this can work.
1) I can find a co-GM to help run the other main table during the finale and perhaps a second, such that I can step back and better co-ordinate tables. RobSkib has already volunteered, although given he ran the event on Saturday, I think I'd sooner let him actually play some games.

2) I can assign GMs to each table, but this obviously means some people won't get to play in the finale.

3) I can assign player-GMs on all tables, and instead act as an overseer, travelling around the games to co-ordinate them/act as an impartial judge if a PGM is unsure how to fairly proceed. The scenarios can also be written in such a fashion as to read "when X happens, talk to Marco to get further instructions", which would also let the PGMs avoid spoiling any twists for themselves.

I think 3 is my favourite option, as it would allow everyone (save myself) to play, and avoid two of the problems from last time - the "I need to tell Marco what's happening over in our game" delays that happened on the main table, as well as keeping me better appraised of the overall flow of events. And I can't imagine we'll be short of players experienced/reasonable enough to take on a PGM role.

In any case, I am going to want to try get a player on every table who is willing to submit a synopsis of what happened, so that some sort of at least basic write up can be done of the full game - such that everyone knows more or less what happened overall (which is a potential issue with these mega finales, in that so much happens that not everyone knows all of it!)

Again, any comments?

WHW requests:
It came up this weekend that the Necromunda terrain we've so often used tends to get lost somewhere if not specifically requested, so I'm putting in a request for that shortly. Is there anything else we might be looking for?

The space hulk board from this year's IGT was a bit of a hit, I know - and probably won't be hard to get hold of, should we want it (it's not like it's much use for the core games). If there's anything else people want, I'll put in the request, but I'm not sure how many of the tables we've had in the past are necessarily still available, given the shift to their Realm of Battle boards.
And with that said, anything we don't request WILL be Realm of Battle.

The other thing I can think of is the pre-organised lunch we've had before (this year's GT, IIRC) has definite practicality advantages, should they be willing to arrange it.

So, any desired terrain/tables/arrangements?

Schedule:
- One game, lunch at about 12, then three games?
or
- Two games, lunch at about 1:30, then two more games?

Either works, but unless there's strong opinions otherwise, I'm inclined to go for the former, given that many people will have had particularly early breakfasts.

~~~~~

I know not all of that is actually phrased as questions, but I'm looking for feedback in any case.

[Cortez]

Option three for the finale sounds the best if you make sure the two tables are next to each other.

You should definitely order the Necromunda terrain for the reasons you mentioned (how do 12" tall buildings dissapear?) and the space hulk board makes a nice change and gives the opportunity for some interesting scenarios, so I would order that as well if there will be sufficient table space (I don't know how many people are attending).

You can do lunch either way. I think both schedules work fine. As for booking lunch I think we should only need to do that if another event is on.

As for the scoring, the contact card system was always nice and fluffy but the points system used on Saturday was much simpler and quicker especially if you use the need to make sets of three cards that has been used in some of the recent events. However I would possibly say a larger point scale awarded in a manner similar to that used at the IGT i.e on how well they tried to achieve the objective, stayed in character etc could be more accurate.

[Heroka Vendile]

Location:
[...] I'm anticipating both Carthaxians and Dalthans at both scales.

I think people get a bit too hung up on this sort of thing. A number of people play games with local gaming groups in their own preset sectors or whatever, Carthax is just a setting for linking our event days, nothing more. Doesn't have to match up with anything that happens in your local group. Heck I've brought warbands to events which muddle up or contradict my own character backgrounds, just cause I wanted to try something a bit different with my stuff. Sure, that then loosely becomes part of the wider Carthax narrative, but not in any binding way. Heck this is exactly what we were doing anyway before "Carthax" was proposed as a unified setting for events.

Gameplay Rule number 1: Have fun.

Setting Rule number 1: Everything You Have Been Told Is A Lie.

Scoring:
basically the GM allocating 3,2,1 points to their players dependent on the success of each, with the GM always scoring 3 themselves for their efforts

perhaps expand to a 5,3,1 points is 3 players, 1 GM - or a 6,4,2,1 for a setup where the GM plays as well.
The idea of players receiving a day-long personal goal for bonus points to be awarded by the event organiser based on their success is quite cool and nicely thematic for Inquisitor. Even if it's just a straight pass/fail evaluation of their success.

Finale:
[...]
3) I can assign player-GMs on all tables, and instead act as an overseer, travelling around the games to co-ordinate them/act as an impartial judge if a PGM is unsure how to fairly proceed. The scenarios can also be written in such a fashion as to read "when X happens, talk to Marco to get further instructions", which would also let the PGMs avoid spoiling any twists for themselves.

3 makes the most sense by far, lets everyone game, lets you keep tabs on everything with less chance of being bogged down on one table.

WHW requests:
[...]So, any desired terrain/tables/arrangements?

Aside from spacehulk and necromunda – the Inquisitor-scale desert farm/village/westerny stuff is very nice if they've still got it around. The ruined cathedral made from the classic plastic gothic ruins too.

[Bloodpact]

As I mentioned to a couple of people on the day, my interest has been piqued by some of the ideas in the Exterminatus 9 article "Shadows of Chaos" about having more overarching agendas for the attendees - the article gives examples like "Assassinate your faction leader", "deliberately mislead team mates" and "never use your true name" (which I think is supposed to apply as much to the player as the character!).
I'm not saying I'd use those examples, but adding in scoring for longer agendas (which might have to be partly down to honesty) could do something to widen that gap.

Any thought or preferences?

This sounds like a great idea, particularly as most warbands will have their own agendas for being present, rather than just being at the beck and call of their faction leader. I know Angstrom certainly would!

[Koval]

Location:
I'm anticipating both Carthaxians and Dalthans at both scales. Because I feel this isn't an excuse to not play games (it certainly hasn't stopped Space Marine chapters trekking the length, breadth and depth of the galaxy in the name of throwing dice around), I'm handwaving the actual in-universe logistics of this to an extent.

Or rather, the logistics are likely to form an element of the plot, but before that's totally set out, I need to contact a couple of people for permission to use elements of their fluff for the day.
In whichever case, though it's likely that whatever the worlds used for the day will have a non-specific identity and location, being referred to by only codenames.

If people might prefer I'm less vague, then I can be. However, it's unlikely that I'll explicitly set goings on in the Dalthus sector (more likely, close nearby), as I have little desire to displease those members of the 28mm community who aren't sold on the idea of this event.

I'd prefer a bit less vagueness, to be honest, but I can understand your reasons. Depending on what the fast Warp route or whatever between Carthax and Dalthus looks like (and indeed depending on where Dalthus is in Ultima), I might even have planets around that general area for you to plunder.

I also have my reservations about one of my cells leaving Carthax.*

Scoring:

I went along to a 40K tournament in August where you got 6 points for winning, 3 points for a draw, 1 point for losing, and nothing for conceding the match. Seeing as it's all objectives-based in 40K nowadays, you could very happily port a similar system over. It keeps things simple, eliminates the two-point-difference, and you don't need to faff around with cards.

As I mentioned to a couple of people on the day, my interest has been piqued by some of the ideas in the Exterminatus 9 article "Shadows of Chaos" about having more overarching agendas for the attendees - the article gives examples like "Assassinate your faction leader", "deliberately mislead team mates" and "never use your true name" (which I think is supposed to apply as much to the player as the character!).

This sounds pretty cool, although neither of my two warbands is led by a standard "leader" archetype**, so anything to do with faction leaders is an instant loss in both cases. So I'll have to be optimistic and say "you've got ten weeks or so to come up with cool stuff".

Finale:
I intend to do something similar to what I did last time around, but hopefully a little slicker. This is partly because it's the only way to be fair and let players of different scales both get onto the "winning table" - in that there will be two winning tables, one of either scale, the characters vying for control of whatever the eponymous "Twin Arches" of the event name might happen to be (wouldn't you like to know?).

That might get a teensy bit tricky if a player has characters on both tables at once. I imagine you'll want concurrent finales so that we don't spoil the surprise for one scale before the other gets a word in edgeways.

I think 3 is my favourite option

Ditto.

In any case, I am going to want to try get a player on every table who is willing to submit a synopsis of what happened

I'll get a Little Black Book out specially. (Which reminds me, I may need to go out and buy some more, but the beauty of my Little Black Books is that they're cheap as chips.)

Schedule:
- One game, lunch at about 12, then three games?
or
- Two games, lunch at about 1:30, then two more games?

Either works, but unless there's strong opinions otherwise, I'm inclined to go for the former, given that many people will have had particularly early breakfasts.

I'm actually tempted to suggest the latter option, solely because I think two games / break / two games makes more sense than having three games back to back. Two/break/two means we'll have a good opportunity to assess where we're all at, whereas one/break/three means there's comparatively little to assess over lunch and we'll be juggling comparatively more during the rest of the festivities. (One approach would be to have Game 1 be a higher-key affair than Games 2 and 3, but that might unfairly get people's hopes up for naught if you start off with a really strong 1 and then rein 2 and 3 in prior to a strong 4.)



*This'll be my 54mm cell, naturally, because Alice is tied in with two of your own characters. I'm fine with Lozano being booted off to wherever, though.

**Alice doesn't really count, and Lozano barely counts himself. In both cases, the Inquisitors responsible either will never see the tabletop or don't even belong to me.

------------

As I mentioned to a couple of people on the day, my interest has been piqued by some of the ideas in the Exterminatus 9 article "Shadows of Chaos" about having more overarching agendas for the attendees - the article gives examples like "Assassinate your faction leader", "deliberately mislead team mates" and "never use your true name" (which I think is supposed to apply as much to the player as the character!).
I'm not saying I'd use those examples, but adding in scoring for longer agendas (which might have to be partly down to honesty) could do something to widen that gap.

Any thought or preferences?

This sounds like a great idea, particularly as most warbands will have their own agendas for being present, rather than just being at the beck and call of their faction leader. I know Angstrom certainly would!

At the risk of being a bit of a bore, neither of mine would have much of an agenda -- Alice's agenda would amount to "do it because Fabian is too busy, and maybe I'll get some brownie points from him", and Lozano's agenda is basically "do not ask why you serve, only ask how".

This may change if I decide to model an Inquisitor at either scale, but this unfortunately is the trouble with having two acolyte cells rather than Inquisitor And Friends

[Kaled]

Schedule:
- One game, lunch at about 12, then three games?
or
- Two games, lunch at about 1:30, then two more games?

You might not get a choice - if I remember rightly I was told last time that if we wanted to pre-order lunch we had to eat at 12...

[MarcoSkoll]

Finale: It seems that option 3 has the favour thus far. Good - I do think it's the most versatile option. Things will likely be on a grander scale, so co-ordinating and prompting games rather than running them is probably going to be smoother.
And yes, I do intend to put the main tables right next to each other, as they're likely to be the ones that need attention most.

@Koval: There shouldn't be issues with players having models on two tables, as they'll have to be at one scale or the other in any given game. (This will hopefully be at their discretion, but it might have to be at mine if I have to balance a number or two).

Terrain: I've booked eight tables, which should give lots of space, particularly if the smaller play area of 28mm is capitalised on. (With the RoB boards set up right, it shouldn't be hard to fit three games over two tables).
I'm not expecting more than about two dozen players (at the outside), but even if a Space Hulk board does have to be pressed into use every game, it isn't that restricting - undercity catacombs, pungent sewers, etc. Something can be arranged for it to be used.

I'm not sure how much of the old Inquisitor township terrain necessarily still exists - I don't recall seeing it since IGT '11, but definitely something see if it is still around!
And I had been thinking about the Basilica Dufaux (it is a spectacular piece!), but I'm even less sure whether that's still around, and it is perhaps a little specific.

Lunch: Preordering isn't necessarily about whether another event is on, but it does mean that everyone will have plenty of time to eat up before the next game. (There have been times when I'm wolfing things down because it's taken most of the lunch hour to actually get food.)

As for when it is in the day, obviously Two-Lunch-Two has worked many times before, and the "more to assess" point is a valid one. (It occurs that I've only seen One-Lunch-Three used at the IGT, where there isn't any overall narrative to keep pace with.)
However, people can tend towards the ravenous on this schedule.

@Kaled: Hmm, hadn't heard that. Well, I'll contact them and see what I get told.

Scoring:

perhaps expand to a 5,3,1 points is 3 players, 1 GM

That doesn't exactly fix the issue, seeing as that's still just three distinct scores from a game. I'm tempted to lean towards something more IGT like (although considerably simplified) as Cortez said.
Perhaps scoring players on both objectives and their coolness/characterfulness, then bonus points for their personal agendas (if I can make that idea work*). This shouldn't be too maths intensive - and could possibly be left to players to add up their own scores, seeing as it doesn't exactly need to be secret scoring.

*It will be quite strongly dependent on players being willing to contact me in advance and discuss ideas. I'm sure I can cook up some more generic ideas to give players who don't inform me in advance, but they'll obviously get less out of it.

Alice's agenda would amount to "do it because Fabian is too busy, and maybe I'll get some brownie points from him"

That's still got its potential. If there were manners in which she could better impress Fabian, those could serve as her "agenda" for the day. Alternatively, not doing things that would earn his ire.

A basic suggestion on the note of the latter would be not letting any member of the warband take major injury - I'm sure Fabian wouldn't be hugely impressed if she got her fellow agents maimed or nearly killed. That's not to say that would necessarily be one of her agendas, but it's an idea.

so anything to do with faction leaders is an instant loss in both cases

Not quite what was meant. Shadows of Chaos made two players the leaders of their respective (Puritan/Radical) factions - another player might then have the objective to assassinate their leader's Inquisitor. It's not intra-warband, it's inter-warband.

I think people get a bit too hung up on this sort of thing.

Trying not to spoil too much before the final version is settled on... but there are two running versions of the fluff at the moment.

My preferred, fluff integrated, version is to be looking at why Carthax has links out to the Eastern galaxy. This is all stuff that was established way back - with things like being the sector first being "liberated" by the Ultramarines, the fact that there happen to be more than a few Tau around, and a few more pieces I might use if I get permission from their owners - but which would certainly benefit from further attention.
As for why Dalthans would take interest... well, it would happen that these links all happen to be unpleasantly close to their neck of the woods, a fact thrown into relief by the prompt appearance of a Carthaxian Inquisitor in Dalthus recently, there to investigate events that strongly mirrored earlier happenings in Carthax.

This is quite Carthax centric - more so than I would like - but Dalthus is mainly Molotov's project, and while he's uncertain about the idea of these combined events, I'd prefer to avoid encroaching too much on it.
I hope this offers a plausible enough excuse for Dalthan involvement without being too direct, but I have got a more location generic alternative if absolutely needs be.

Setting Rule number 1: Everything You Have Been Told Is A Lie.

EHYBTIAL is actually already in the briefing fluff, seeing as I couldn't resist the opportunity.

[RobSkib]

The version of things Rob used at the event on Saturday (basically the GM allocating 3,2,1 points to their players dependent on the success of each, with the GM always scoring 3 themselves for their efforts) is obviously a lot simpler as regards actual set-up, if less fluffy.

I'll respond properly when I have the time, but this only worked because three people scored exactly the right amount of points to put them into the finale (3 people scored 9, the rest scored 8 etc...) If anyone else had scored full points, it would have been a real conundrum about who to put through to the final.

I much prefer the scoring system you laid out. I'll have more time to respond to this when I'm more cogent!

[MarcoSkoll]

That was one of the things that struck me when you'd said you would have had a three way tie for a runner up if I hadn't picked Jim as the victor in the game I ran - it is really easy to get several people with the same scores.

I'm perhaps thinking a 0-10 scoring for objectives and a 0-5 scoring for coolness/character (each per game), then a bonus 15 points to be split between a few personal agendas (the exact number may vary per player), for a round 60 maximum.
This is obviously a very different balance of objectives vs. character to what the GT offers, but our narrative days tend to go that way in any case, and this does put some reward back in for adding flair to the game.

I should add I'm not planning on having people score the GMs, seeing as it would be unfair to penalise them for getting a short straw as far as scenario allocation.
I'll probably award them maximum points for their game as you did - it should work out reasonably fairly, seeing as they lose a game in which to complete their agendas.

[MarcoSkoll]

Sorry about the delay on the briefing pack - I know I promised the start of October, but I've got a couple things to neaten up, and I didn't really give a couple of people I need to clear parts of the fluff with very much time.

However, I offer you this teaser:

And so it was that the stars started to deceive, the sky told its lies and none could see the truth as they stared into the night. Or, such is the best that the Inquisition can hope...

[MarcoSkoll]

Hello gents. Presenting the "Twin Arches" Event Pack.

Data files will be coming at some point soon for the Scylla and Kharybdis systems.

~~~~~

To address it if it should come up again, as I said a while back, the plot is largely Carthax focused - to repeat, this is because Dalthus is primarily Molotov's project, and as he's uncertain about the idea of a combined event, it's not something that I'm going to encroach on for the sake of a very experimental event.

Hopefully, the plot still offers plausible justification/motivation for any Dalthan Inquisitors who do wish to attend. I'd not want to put anyone off coming and playing some games.