Jump to content

Saint Vierzehn

Members
  • Posts

    139
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Saint Vierzehn

  1. It looks kinda a type of weapon the Aztecs used, which consisted of a wooden "paddle" with sharp blades of obsidian embedded on the edge. -StV.
  2. Since you're abandoned all concern for playbalance, then there's really no basis for conversation at all. You've said what you want to have and have no basis upon which to justify it other than your own gut feelings. And, despite your denials, your gut feelings are demonstrably anti-merc. That's too bad, really. Your proposal was halfway decent until you started throwing out arbitrary discipline penalties and point cost increases, along with nonsense arguments to support them. +mercs 10% (with no penalties) is a decent idea. On that much, at least, we can agree. I would like to see that playtested. In fact, I wouldn't mind seeing your whole proposal playtested. I think you would discover that nobody competent would go over 10% mercs in order to avoid your arbitrary penalties. Then, once we've settled that your penalty scheme was pointless rubbish, we could begin experimenting with higher percentages of +mercs w/o pentalties. I think +mercs 25% (no penalties) would be worth playtesting. -StV.
  3. If that's your objection, then the only consistent proposal is to disallow +mercs entirely. Players will take best advantage of whatever troop selections are available. If you don't like people "plugging holes" with mercs, then it's best to just keep things simple and disallow the whole thing entirely. That's an impractical solution, and one nobody should ever be in support of. Half true. It is a perfectly practical solution. I agree that it's not the best solution, but it is certainly practical. It's very simple to implement, in fact. We just leave things as they are now. If you're going to object to people taking +mercs on the basis that they might actually complement their troops and/or compensate for weaknesses that they would otherwise face, then the only logical solution is to disallow +mercs entirely. Modifying a model's utility (in the case of your proposition, by arbitrarily lowering its discipline) without concurrently decreasing its point cost is not a balanced solution. Likewise, arbitrarily increasing the point cost of particular models is not a balanced solution either. I agree that a balanced solution is called for. I've not yet seen you propose one. We've not yet agreed that the imbalance that you propose exists. Nor, apparently, have we yet agreed that descreasing a model's combat utility while increasing its point cost introduces an imbalance. We have not yet agreed that those other things are necessarily absent in mercs. And apparently you consider coin to be completely absent as a motivating factor in other faction armies. I think that both of your assumptions are implausible. When people keep proposing that only a particular faction should suffer penalties in the face of command collapse, and when people keep proposing that only a particular faction lacks militaristic discipline, faith, motivation, and/or pride, then the accusation of prejudice justifies itself. -StV.
  4. I have a friend who is planning to start Overlords. I helped him assemble a 1000-point Onyx Legion list. Please let me know what you think of it. Vincente, Chevalier Captain 2x Onyx chevalier Onyx zephyr Merack 2x Onyx phalanx 3x Overlord crossbowmen Arik Gix, Inquisitor counterspell x 2, stun spell Corvus 4x Overlord warrior Corvus 3x Overlord warrior -StV.
  5. This is the solution I would prefer too. But friendly models should not be able to move the flying model. Otherwise, you could surf a Giant base flying model 5-10 inches before it even activates. Easy to fix. If the movement of one of my models pushes the flier, then my opponent gets to reposition the flyer. If the movement of one of my opponent's models pushes the flier, then I get to reposition the flyer. -StV.
  6. If that's your objection, then the only consistent proposal is to disallow +mercs entirely. Players will take best advantage of whatever troop selections are available. If you don't like people "plugging holes" with mercs, then it's best to just keep things simple and disallow the whole thing entirely. We do not agree on that point, either. Grunts are almost always the better choice - basic warriors, axemen, spearmen, and crossbowmen. Those types of troops are hardly imbalancing, don't overpower the "flavor" of any particular faction, and do the types of things that any good list should be able to do. Most people probably would choose the flashier adepts instead, but they're really not the best choice, and every faction has a good selection of adepts anyway. We are not inagreement as to what you consider appropriate fluff, either. And I think it's rather egregarious for you to cast in a poor light a faction that you do not play. But, if you wish to indulge your prejudice that professional warriors must be more poorly disciplined than factioned conscripts, I doubt I will be able to convince you otherwise. -StV.
  7. "Far superior" is not a descriptor that I would apply to Merc troops. Quite the opposite, in fact. But for the sake of discussion, let's take it for granted that I'm not going to be able to persuade you on that point. Fine. You think they're "far superior". If so, then the rules you propose should enforce that assumption. +10% mercs with no additional point cost doesn't do that. In fact, that proposal runs counter to all your arguments. If merc troops are actually "far superior", then you should apply a large point penalty on the first batch included, and then (if anything) reduce it for larger numbers of merc troops included due to diminishing marginal utility. You can play an army that consists entirely of adepts as the rules stand now anyway. I've faced such armies. And I don't think that an all-adepts force is advantageous, either. The ones I've faced I've defeated quite handily. They would have been better off with some basic grunts instead. Adepts are great for supporting a mass of grunts, but as the main line themselves, they're not so hot. But if merc adepts really are your hang-up point, it would be easily fixed by simply saying that merc adepts aren't for hire by other factions. Then nobody would have any particular advantage in availability of adepts. -StV.
  8. Something like this, I like. This, however, is poor playbalance. If you're going to reduce the utility of a model, you should reduce its point cost accordingly. -StV.
  9. I think it is completely and utterly pointless, as well as unreasonable, and founded upon a view biased against mercs, just like it was the last time those thoughts were touted in this forum. On the upside, since the game has been adjusted all factions can field well-rounded and adequate armies, there's no playbalance issue to correct, which was the primary impetus to propose the idea in the first place in the prior edition. -StV.
  10. There are also rules regarding how many sergeants and captains you are permitted to take. Army comp rules are pretty strict, and rightly so. I think it would be a good idea to familiarize yourself with the rulebook before buying more than two units' worth of minis. -StV.
  11. Nope. Nope. Nope. Yes. Big time. Maybe. I like a good challenge, and facing my own army certainly would be one. I think this would be a better way to handle things. There are perfectly valid reasons why some people wouldn't want to do this. Perhaps, for one round, you could give participants a choice to opt in for the swap or not. And perhaps give a tiebreaker point or a chance to compete for a special prize/award to those who opt in. That way, those who opt out would still be able to get a good game and compete in the tourney as usual, and those of us who are the real kung-fu masters would get a special chance to shine. -StV.
  12. I saw someone field 1500 points of Necropolis with under 20 minis. Judas, a nice captain, and about 15 crimson knights. That list put up a pretty tough fight, too. Everything is good at dishing out the hurt, and can do vampiric feeding. Nasty. Reaper is also putting out some very nice pre-painted plastic skeletons, which would probably be an inexpensive add-on for later. -StV.
  13. Put Matt Ragan on a body building program. -StV.
  14. Heh. I'll settle for Druid Jane, who has spellcaster 0/0 and an affinity for high-caliber firearms. Battle over Canton, anyone? -StV.
  15. I didn't assume that you had thrown out the army composition rules. Cavalry models take up double slots, so Lady Jehanne + two other models with cavalry = 6 slots used. The army I posted is perfectly legal under the strictures you listed. Now, as you previously stated, you don't mind special rules that handicap one particular army over another. That's another way of saying that you don't mind seeing playbalance go out the window. I do mind. I don't want my opponent to be handicapped. Handicap games are not true competition. One recognizes no peers under those circumstances. That's not my idea and it's not one that I like, and I'll thank you kindly to avoid putting words in my mouth again. -StV.
  16. Or maybe they think those sorts of changes are a GOOD THING. -StV.
  17. Right... Do you really think any sensible person would bring RAV 1 archers when they've got a book that sports scads of elite characters, very powerful solos, and heavy cav, when point values aren't a factor? Here's the Crusader army I would be fielding under that scenario... Lady Jehanne Lady Devona (No spells? Fine. She's got a ranged attack and is decent in melee.) Sir Damon Sir Danel 2 Lion's Lancers Heavy Cav Marcus Gideon Hearne, Light Lancer 2 Ivy Crown Light Lancers Guardian Angel Guardian Beast Hound of Judgement All you've done is remove the consideration of whether models are worth their points, and replace it with the consideration of whether models are worth their slots. So far, the only thing I've seen special scenarios do is change the economy of the game, and generally in a way that monkies playbalance out the window. -StV.
  18. 1501 points Clash of the Titans. Warlords are mandatory. Dwarves have two options for the mandatory warlord, and they're both arguably the most point-inefficient warlords in the game. Freelance, on the other hand, has access to every single character model ever produced, which includes all of the best ones. It does matter. -StV.
  19. The problem with things like this is that they tend to favor certain army types/factions over others. For example, a night fight that applies penalties to shooting and magic would pretty strongly disfavor Darkspawn. Which is odd, because if ever there was an army adapted to fighting in the dark, the Darkspawn would be it. On the other hand, the typical not-very-shooty-and-not-much-magic Crusader list would love it. Not only that, but changing fundamental mechanics of the game favors the most adaptable armies most... which is another way of saying that it favors Freelance. -StV.
  20. Thank you. That is what I had assumed. I just wanted to make sure I was correct. -StV.
  21. Please clarify what "shooters" are. Is it any model with a ranged attack? So, for example, Lunk with his range 6 RAV 0 attack is a shooter? -StV.
  22. Personally, I'd like to see the Darkspawn draw points off their offense for a nice, squishy cleric. Besides, if the +mercs rule is being used, they can already take the lupine shaman. -StV.
  23. Reaper could probably print a booklet that contains Warlord's core rules and the data cards for about the same price as their catalog of models - pretty inexpensively. I think the powers-that-be at Reaper should consider doing that, and then pass out the booklets at game clubs and conventions, and make the whole ruleset downloadable on-line. With the increase in interest in the game, Reaper could make up the profits on sales of minis. Then, for those of us who like having fancy rulebooks, Reaper could put out a nice binder with replaceable, magazine-quality pages. -StV.
×
×
  • Create New...