ViciousPanzer

Members
  • Content count

    297
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3

About ViciousPanzer

  • Rank
    Enlightened
  • Birthday

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Dallas, Tx
  1. 2d6 would smooth some of the swinginess in this game and would improve and/or change tactics. I also just don't like how the d10 mechanic works in practice. I can't plan around the the die type because it's too swingy, so I take a small subset of troops to mitigate and make the die irrelevant which has basically made 50% of the models I own useless. Now I do understand how the d10 does makes one-hit-one-wound mechanic work, but as I said it makes the game a little more swingy than I like. Lesser defensive strikes is about how I loathe out of sequence activations. It rewards lazy play and makes paying attention to the game optional. Currently full strikes back makes stand and wait as viable a tactic as hunt them down, and I am no fan of encouraging people to not engage in playing a game. This is slightly less of an issue with missions, but point me to a repository of missions. It doesn't exist. The ranged rules have a few problems. First the troops are overpriced for what they can do. At their cost I can get better melee troops who can more reliably damage my opponent. Second defensive shots make it so no one shoots at other missile troops unless they have no other targets so it's a wasted ability. Third missile troops are useful only in turn 1 and depending on the draw turn 2 thus not justifying the points cost. This is how I play against missile. Deny shooting on turn 1 and be in melee on turn 2 thus making your missile troops overpriced underpowered melee troops. Not really. If it was plus 1 for every group of number x in b2b then yes. As it stands taking a melee beat stick that costs what 3 basic troops cost is typically far superior than the 3 warriors. The MAV that beat-stick has is better than the +1 three models in b2b would get. Yes you'll get more attacks but usually those beat-sticks have abilities that are better (read damage causing abilities not requiring a roll.) 2d6 would improve the game. CAV:SO is already playing better because of it. It makes me not feel like I was yet again screwed by the swingy nature of the d10. One of the ways to resolve why defensive shots suck is that if anything shoots in LOS of a missile troop they can shoot back, but then that ability would be too good. A million times this. Releasing a PDF of another company's rules when the D&D 1st ed rules it uses are free online already (OSRIC) was silly. Giving people access to the 2nd ed Warlord rules would've been the better move. But hey as you said they're not a game company. With a few hours work I could make a pretty decent Dungeon Crawl game using the Warlord rules and the D&D Tiles. Ok, been a long time since I was on here but much hasn't changed about Warlord since then heheh. Warlord works off of a d10 system for a reason. It may seem swingy but in actuality it's statistically very stable. I know this because a statistical fanatic helped put the system together. I may be missing the point on the 2d6 train of thought but I can tell you that working in increments of 10% is very stable and easy to modulate. Any game with dice and chance will be somewhat swingy but in Warlord each faction has the ability to negate much of the swing if you build to that purpose. Whether through massive number of attacks, massive MAV's, buffs, a combination, etc. Also I should point out I have no idea how to cut up and multi quote stuff so this is going to be alittle ramshackle approach to the message I am delivering. On the subject of defensive strikes - During playtesting we tried a ton of different ways to do defensive strikes from allowing ALL strikes against any opponents in b2b to 0 allowed. We found that for speed of play allowing the full number of attacks to be used defensively was the best choice. The combat to me seems like a real fight where every moment people are trying to kill each other as opposed to "You tried to kill me and when I get to go next I will try and stab you back. .. if I am still alive". Initating a charge vs receiving - There is a HUGE advantage to being the aggressor in a melee situation in Warlord. One of the very most famous instances of this is when 7 Bondslave survivors rushed Rauthoros and brought him down in one melee. This was when we tested the much dreaded Darkspawn Daisy Chain tactic.The charge plus support bonuses gave them a fighting chance against the monster to which they succeeded brilliantly, unfortunately they didn't receive those because they were under the effects of a spell that made them mindless but it did give them Martyr so they still got +2 but had to die afterwards. If they had RECEIVED a charge from Rauthoros, even all 7 of them at once, it's unlikely any would have scored a hit because they would have had only a 10% chance to hit instead of a 50%. The long and short is that the game rewards for aggressive play. 3 units charging one unit usually results in the charged unit's death and a wound or two possibly on the aggressors. Some SA's make charging a unit unpalatable (FIrst Strike/Pike) but the advantage is still to the attacker as they get to dictate who takes a spear in the eye. Setting up a good charge and maximizing support and #MA is one of the things I like best about Warlord. If you don't believe me on this I would be glad to take you on anytime and show you the difference in receiving the charges or giving them :) Ranged units - Ranged units are pricey for a reason you are right. That was something else that was tested extensively. Since Warlord is a melee skirmish game I believe the intent was to err on underpowered archers versus over powered. That being said though, archery units are far from underpowered. Just like if you choose to make melee a focus for your list so to must you build your list to accomodate for archers particular strengths and weaknesses. There are builds for each faction that can quite effectively highlight the brutal power of ranged attacks. One of the favored is the Ivy Crown archers for the crusaders. With Lady Jehanne in command of 10 archers and an elite for bless you now have a unit that will consistently put out 10 RAV 6 shots or RAV 5 at long range. That's pretty fierce and will make short work of many soldiers. Couple them with Lady Devona and you now have access to Whirlwind to keep enemies in disarray and unable to approach. Throw in a couple of troops for a picket line (like wardogs with their Short SA) and you now have a very defensible firebase from which to black out the sky. All in all a ton of testing went into the various ways Warlord could be configured. I won't speak to CAV or Reich as those games both have dynamics I am unfamiliar with but I can tell you that the deeper you dig into Warlord, the more elegant it seems to become. I've only found one broken list in this new edition and believe me I excel at finding the broken in game systems. . .well most systems in general. And even though it's a broken list it's still not entirely broken, it has to be played the right way or it's defeatable as easily as any other list. Even after years of playing it with no revisions or anything I am STILL finding new and interesting builds and combinations for the factions. Just wish I had more time to test my theory crafting for practicality ha! I hope that addressed properly the points you rose. If it didn't please let me know and I am more than glad to expand upon my notions or even make them more succinct as I see I have typed a bit. . . Cheers! I haven't gotten to chat about Warlord in a long time so I'm a bit rusty as to everything and why, plus I wrote this past midnight and nothing good happens past midnight if you are over 30.
  2. I would love to see a Karkarion faction. I think that would be boss. However! Datacard wise I would suspect they are fairly similar to Koborlas. Infact! If you really had an urge and the mind for it I bet you could create a proxied up Koborlas list that would play every bit like a swarm of blood crazed shark people and still be very viable. :)
  3. You may also want to consider making the Gaan'Hor list of doom verboten. I've never seen it beaten when played properly and only took us 1 tournament to realize it was a bit much for "friendly" matches. It's the closest thing to a broken list that exists and can ruin a lot of fun. . unless of course someone out there thinks they have what it takes to stop it?
  4. Another benefit of spikeshell's DR (and relative cheap cost) is that you have no fear from fireball, poison, chain lightning, or any other AoE for the most part when they are massed together. They shrug it off and keep trucking. Unless your opponent drops 2 effects on you. Then you are boned. . or shelled? It ain't good either way.
  5. In time I may be able to make a sizeable contribution. . Although I may negotiate slightly different rewards as befits my evil genius mindset. Joshua
  6. Definitely sounds like something worth ditching work early for. Joshua
  7. Wouldn't really be relevant for some games. GW's Warhammer 40k uses 2,500 point forces in tournaments I believe. I may be wrong. Haven't played that since discovering Warlord lol. In any even tI do know people who have spent 2-3 thousand dollars on just 2 or 3 armies for that game and still are missing things they'd like to have. Joshua
  8. Technically, it seems that if you are stunned and burning and you use your 1 action to do something other than put yourself out you would then take a point of damage and be un-stunned. . but still burning. So then would you get your second action? Or is the one action limitation a factor regardless of that fact? If so then it stands to reason that a stunned model will always only ever be able to take 1 action on their next activation even if they take damage before that. Follow? Joshua
  9. Paint or no paint. The eternal debate right? Well the fact is that miniature painting and miniature gaming are two completely separate hobbies independant of each other. It's true. Someone can go their entire life painting miniatures without ever gaming with one and the opposite can be said as well. Requiring someone to have a painted army or they can't play in tournaments is like requiring someone who only paints to play the games or they can't enter into painting contests. Could you imagine telling Derek Schubert or Anne Foerster that they aren't allowed to enter their painted figures because they didn't play a game with them first? It just doesn't make sense since they are two separate and distinct hobbies. Painted models look better than bare metal most of the time and they also improve the atmosphere of the battle tremendously. What they don't do is offer a tactical advantage or make someone a better player. Since tournaments are there for players to pit their skills against each other, not their paint jobs, painted armies just aren't required. I'd be more interested in a "best sportmanship" award than a "best painted" award. Want to win an award for your painted force? Enter it into a painting competition. Want to win victory in a tournament? Play well. Joshua [EDIT] Looks like my point of view was expressed a tad earlier than I hit post lol [EDIT]
  10. As we all know it's all about the list and not at all about the player lol (inside joke) Joshua
  11. I'ts a badly designed scenario. It grants a huge advantage to whoever gets the first move on the first turn, and heavily favors whoever brings the biggest close-combat general. -Lionheart. It's funny you should say that as I defeated a Reptus list led by the Broodmaster (the most melee warlord there is just about) with a Nefsokar list headed by Neb'Nesew Nepet (not at all melee). . AND I had to go 3rd in the first turn ( I really should include more initiative conrol in my list). If you focus on the objectives and less on just killing it has a great effect. Joshua
  12. Well it all really depends on what you and your opponent decide before the match starts or what a tournament scenario dictates. I would say (don't have my rulebook handy) that a crossing point of a river would count as light terrain or difficult terrain at worst. MEaning either no movement penalty or 1/2 move. Crossing a river is a 1/4 movement penalty as your units attempt to swim it I think (meaning 1" costs 4"). One could always just deem something water as impassible too either due to strong currents or angry watery denizens like pirhanas or something. Joshua
  13. I don't think this would be a difficult card to create actually. Give it 4 Damage Tracks so it's automatically nice and pricey. Give it a modest DV and MD, sad melee abilities, and a few SA's (Construct, Undead, Deflect/1). Wouldn't want it to be an elite or a soldier as that would be too powerful to team it with a troops firepower. So it's a solo. As for the Ranged stuff. In order to keep it simple I'd Give it Range 20/36, Indirect Shot, Pierce, AoE/3 (3" AoE), Sharpshooter, Unhinderd, and RAV 4 or 5. Would probably cost less than 200 points. Yeah, that would be pretty nice heheh. Joshua
  14. Boosh! It's on! Joshua
  15. Stubb is right. DR/2 models like Mossbeard can be a right pain to deal with but if you focus firepower on them they fall fairly easily. The whole point is to put as much damage on them at once while minimizing damage taken in return. Model states like Stunned, Disabled, and Cursed are huge when attacking such large models. Send in a disable model after hitting him with an Ice shard or some other effect that stuns and you will face almost no retribution for your assault. This is why it's important to have versatility in a pitched battle list. That being said, 3 mossbeards is a nasty proposition! Joshua