N18 Dominion - How to issue challenges?

[Valar]

Hi!

Our group is soon to start a Dominion Campaign and we’re not too sure how to deal with Challenges.

The first game will be an arbitrated scenario with a random player over a random Territory, a case of following a lead and finding someone else there.

After that though we’re a bit stuck!

Originally we were going to have people post in our group page who they were challenging over which territory, that would be accepted or forfeited and go on from there.

But then we realised it would be first come first served with regards to choosing the best territories.
The first Van Saar players to see the post go up could challenge for the Archeotech and only the target of the challenge could do anything about it until the second half of the campaign.

One suggestion was to have everyone declare who they are fighting, then have the player with the Lowest Gang Rating declare which territory they are fighting over.
This could help the underdogs catch up with clever choices.

Or alternatively, down from highest rating, to represent the top dogs staking claim and lashing out, but then that could make the rich richer time and again...

We’re not sure!

How have you dealt with issuing challenges?
Have you had similar problems? If so how did you fix it?

Sorry for the wall of text and thank you in advance!

 

[ten_kage]

In my campaign we are ruffling a "challange order" at the beginning of each cycle.

It is completely random and I have seen no mayor complains between my fellow player.

Each player can issue one challange per cycle, nominating his challanged player and the territory they are fighting over. A player can recieve more than a challange (this was necessary becouse we are an uneven number, but each territory can be fought ver only once per cycle.
This limit the possibiolity of people horading much territories, even if at the end of our first cycle, one was already controlling three due to a stroke of fortune.

 

[KA7777]

My group is also going with a revolving challenge order (one challenge per player per "cycle").

We also rolled to establish priority. As mentioned, some territories are more attractive than others (especially in the occupation phase when they can't be lost for a little while -- for example, Settlements are amazing for GSC gangs). The games don't have to be played in order, due to scheduling complications, but if Player A has priority and challenges Player C for a Needle Ways then Player B can't fight for the same territory.

The default rules seem open to abuse, particularly in a public "at the LGS" style campaign. It seems like two players could collude at the beginning and play like 10x games in one day, snatching up all the territories and securing an insurmountable economic advantage.

 

[Kiro The Avenger]

Yes, the current rules (or lack thereof) regarding challenges is terrible.
The way my group ran it is that the arbitrator randomly determines the first challenge of a cycle (IE, he determines that player A challenges E, C challenges B, etc). This is also a good time to fiddle things to give the weaker gangs a boost.
Players could also optionally play a second game each cycle, for which it wasn't strictly ruled, but encouraged, that if one player has already challenged that cycle and the hadn't, the one who hadn't challenge got the chance. Otherwise players rolled off to determine.

The system worked well for occupation.
For take over however, players also had the option of playing a narrative mission picked by the arbitrator, which will provide an unknown benefit to the victor in the finale (which is still to come).
So I don't think anyone has chosen to challenge over territory in their second game.
Also, rather than being prescribed who to challenge the arbitrator determines who gets first choice of challenge, each person can only be challenged once per cycle.

 

[almic85]

We did each gang gets one challenge per cycle for their chosen territory.

For occupation phase the first cycle was randomly determined then challenge order went from least number of territory to most. Mostly everyone just picked their territories then waited to see who turned up on games night to pick who to fight.

In the takeover phase I started getting everyone to send me their top three territories to challenge for and then used the number of territories to decide order of challenges. Then I posted up who was fighting who and for what territory at the start of each cycle.

I really could have run the takeover phase rules for the entire campaign, but occupation phase allows for any two gangs to play for a territory so I left it open for whoever turned up each week.

 

[Loriel]

During our first dominion campaign LANTA Sector we have only one challenge rule. It was merely "don't be a dick" We didn't make any extra rules regarding what was described in the rulebook. It worked quite well atleast in our group. only problem was that takeover phase was rather passive

In our next campaign that is about to start if everything goes well in june, we made couple rules there. First of all was that we introduce cycles.

• Player may make any number of challenges per cycle, but only one at the time. Challenger may withdraw challenge
• Challenged player must reply as soon as possible wether they are going to accept the challenge or forfeit. If accepted the game should be played before the end of next cycle. If the game isn't played before the next cycle (because of the defender) the defender loses the territory.
• Player that has been challenged during this cycle can decline challenge without any penalty.
• golden rule: Don't be a dick
• And finally, if both players agree they may play as many games as they like.

 

[Kiro The Avenger]

The problem with playing lots of games is income.
Not only do those gangs who play a lot get a lot of territories, but they get a lot income from those territories.

 

[Baffo]

In our local capaign we have 1 Territory challenge per cycle house rule (you can make 1 challenge, but accept any number; territories generate income only on games with another territory at stake; if you want to play more games they count as 'Side quest games' and then territories don't generate extra income, only what you get from scenario rewards).

As for challenge priority, at the start of each cycle all players can declare (send a PM to the arbitrator) which territory they want to try to occupy that cycle: if 2 or more players target the same territory they get paired up and play out the game for that territory, otherwise if none else targeted the same territory you want, you just find/challenge a free player for the territory as normal.

Not everybody uses this option, since not everyone is as concerned with 'optimizing' territory occupation and prefer to pick the territory at stake just before the game, but on the other hand for those players that want to optimize or rush the 'best' territories, this approach gives them all an equal chance to 'strive' for a specific territory like Tech baazar or Gambling den.

 

[Jacob Dryearth]

My group is also going with a revolving challenge order (one challenge per player per "cycle").

We also rolled to establish priority. As mentioned, some territories are more attractive than others (especially in the occupation phase when they can't be lost for a little while -- for example, Settlements are amazing for GSC gangs). The games don't have to be played in order, due to scheduling complications, but if Player A has priority and challenges Player C for a Needle Ways then Player B can't fight for the same territory.

The default rules seem open to abuse, particularly in a public "at the LGS" style campaign. It seems like two players could collude at the beginning and play like 10x games in one day, snatching up all the territories and securing an insurmountable economic advantage.

That's pretty much exactly how I ran my campaign, except I only did a single draft at the beginning. It gave everyone 2 battles pre-scheduled for the occupation phase. People had free reign after that.

It worked great, the only thing I would change is to do it a 2nd time during the downtime break. Without that guidance, not many people challenged in the 2nd half.

 

[MrAndersson]

In our campaign, we have a simple system where we have divided each campaign phase into three cycles. Before each cycle we play a narrative multiplayer scenario, as an "extra credit" activity, usually with some custom boons depending on individual missions. After that, each player earns income (even those that didn't participate, to keep things even). Then, usually on a separate day, we hold a meeting and challenge each other. Each player gets to challenge once, and each player can only be challenged once. This results in each player getting signed up for two battles.

Challenges are issued in order, with the player with the fewest territories going first. Gang value is tie breaker (lowest goes first).

Players then have 4-5 weeks to play out their battles, and then the next cycle starts.

 

[Petitioner's City]

In our campaign, due to fluctuating players and varied schedules, our system was to do the following:

All players present roll a d6. The highest rolled player may challenge one player present to play a game, staking an unclaimed territory. Of the remaining players, the next highest then challenges one of those left over, staking an unclaimed territory. Carry on until there are no players present unchallenged. If a player refuses a challenge, the challenger obtains the territory. They may then be challenged by other players.

It needs revision for sure, and isn't always followed either, so may not work either.

 

[Uliel]

Question. Are players limited in the number of challenges they can decline? I like to think it wouldn’t happen but what if one player chose to decline all challenges made to him in order to challenge somebody else and increase their own territory?

 

[TopsyKretts]

We agree a time and place to play. Who ever meets up plays against someone else who meets up. Those who doesn't meet up doesn't play. No cycles. And decline doesn't exist for us, because if you decline, you are basically saying you don't want to play (and then, why show up?).

 

[almic85]

Question. Are players limited in the number of challenges they can decline? I like to think it wouldn’t happen but what if one player chose to decline all challenges made to him in order to challenge somebody else and increase their own territory?

officially there are no limits on the number of challenges a player can make or decline or on the order of challenges made.

You really need to sit down with your group and work out what works for all of you.

In the groups where I am the arbitrator I pretty much don’t allow challenges to be declined as it can break the system. Essentially if you are challenged but are unable to play your game in the timeframe you automatically lose, and if you challenge someone but can’t arrange the game then you forfeit your right to issue a challenge.

 

[Chaos Isaac]

There's a simple answer in the Exploration version of territory grabbing.
You randomly draw from Territories after a victory and end up getting whatever. It's been super entertaining 'cause even then like half of the gangs still drew their territory cards, but things like Archeotech didn't get grabbed until four weeks in.

Another note is Challenge per Cycle/week. It's pretty clear you're not meant to be able to try and pick up more than one a week, however you can still do this if you're challenged and you win both matches. This can also slow down the 'rich', per say, as if everyone avoids them they lose any opportunities besides their one a week.

 

[JawRippa]

Questions regarding takeover:

1). What is the best way to avoid inevitable situation when there are more than 2 challenges for the same territory? Making multiplayer battles a constant is a bit messy, especially if there are more than 3 players involved.
2). What if a territory is challenged only by a single player? Does he get it for free and then waits for other players to battle for theirs?
3). What to do with players who haven't gotten any territories after few games?

 

[almic85]

1/ either work out an order for people to challenge in and cut it down to 2 gangs or allow multiplayer fights.

2/ get him to play whoever turns up. I usually only allow one gang to pick the territory so if two gangs pick the same territory the second one gets to challenge for his second territory choice.

3/ make them play each other!!!

 

[thanejaw]

we used a google doc to establish ownership and who was challenging who for the territory

seemed to work well along with the golden rule

Questions regarding takeover:

1). What is the best way to avoid inevitable situation when there are more than 2 challenges for the same territory? Making multiplayer battles a constant is a bit messy, especially if there are more than 3 players involved.
2). What if a territory is challenged only by a single player? Does he get it for free and then waits for other players to battle for theirs?
3). What to do with players who haven't gotten any territories after few games?

 

[thanejaw]

By establishing ownership I mean recording it