Jump to content

Saint Vierzehn

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Saint Vierzehn

  1. I'm sorry that you have not seen a balanced proposal. Fortunatly we're not trying to achieve complete balance, we can save that for the play testers and Reaper Peeps.


    Our goal here should be to offer fun ideas, and just try to keep playable.


    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.



  2. It's that kind of diversity, that can give a leg up to a player who utilizes it.

    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.


    Refusing to grow the game because we'll have to work towards a balanced solution is silly, and it will result in the ruining of the game.


    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.



    Total disagreement on my approach to fixing what could be an imbalance:


    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.



    I think that an army employed by coin is less likely to listen when told to do things that could result in death, especially when their employeer is being slaughtered beside them; as apposed to armies based on militaristic disipline, blind faith, motivation through torture, or national pride.


    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.



    Also, you seem to keep accusing people who want to impose a penalty on mixed Merc play of being biased against Mercs as a faction.


    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.



  3. 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




    2x Onyx phalanx

    3x Overlord crossbowmen

    Arik Gix, Inquisitor

    counterspell x 2, stun spell




    4x Overlord warrior




    3x Overlord warrior





  4. I would treat the flying models exactly like stunned models that are in the way. The player moving into B2B gets to move the flyer far enough out of the way to base the model he wants, but no farther.

    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.



  5. It's that kind of diversity, that can give a leg up to a player who utilizes it.



    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.



    The type of model he uses to plug what that faction is missing is irrelevent, I was using adept as kind of a catch all because usually they are the better choice.


    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.




    I was trying to come up with a fluff based limitation without flat out blocking something a player wants to do. DIS checks are fairly limited in the game, and lowering that as an army is "Bought" makes sense fluff wise to me, and game wise it takes very little work.



    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. :B):



  6. I think that by adding Mercs you are giving yourself an advantage to begin with. Filling the gaps that your faction may be missing with things far superior to what you would normally recieve.


    "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.



    Also the only way to get extra Adepts normally is through a few faction abilities, but by combining Mercs with your own force, you can potentially play an army of nothing but Adepts. Which I think is a big advantage.


    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.



  7. If less than 1/10 of the game decided point value is Mercenary:

    No penalty for the player with Mercenarys


    Something like this, I like.


    If 1/10 to 1/4 of the game decided point value is Mercenary:

    Mercenary Models lose -2 DIS,


    If 1/4 to 1/2 of the game decided point value is Mercenary:

    Mercenary Models lose -2 DIS,

    Mercenary Models are always concidered out of cohesion for all game purposes.


    This, however, is poor playbalance. If you're going to reduce the utility of a model, you should reduce its point cost accordingly.



  8. Pay the Paymaster

    Mercenary soldiers use in another faction's force cost 10% more than their normal cost. Leaders, elites, and solos cost 20% more.



    I'm not Getting Paid Enough for This

    Mercenaries on their last track will attempt to disengage from B2B and move back to their deployment zone except when in B2B contact with a model with the Undead SA. If they fail their discipline check, they will try again since surrendering may just mean paying a ransom and then getting hired by the opposing side. Against models with the Undead SA, the Mercenary will not automatically attempt disengagement since surrendering to the Undead could mean a fate worse than death.



    What do you think?


    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.



  9. 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.



  10. Would you get P'd?




    Would you refuse because either you would feel innadequate cause your knowledge in other armies is not good?




    Would you refuse because you wouldnt want anyone else toucing your minis (even though they would be right there at the same table as you doing it)?




    Would you get kinda rush out of it trying to go against your own "perfectly" built army?


    Yes. Big time.


    Would it be exciting because you would get the chance to broaden your horizons in the game in live action?




    How would you react?


    I like a good challenge, and facing my own army certainly would be one.


    What if you knew BEFORE you get to the tournament that you would be doing an army swap for one of the rounds? How would that change your feelings?


    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.



  11. I am kinda in the same situation, cept I have two friends who could teach me(Ashkyrpt's Crew, and another friend) only my income does not have the 'foundations' for an expensive hobby. I would really like to play and learn but I need an inexpensive way to get into playing. Which army is the cheapest to start with?


    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.



  12. Also, about the Lucky 13 Tournament, I didn't throw out army composition. You would still need to satisfy basic requirements. If you took Lady Jehanne, she needs five other models minimum. She might not be the best choice. If you want more models with punch, take Gerard who only needs two others to make a legal unit.


    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.



    But I also like your idea of straight up no points and no army comp rules. 13 of the biggest, baddest models on the board from your faction. What a fight that would be! I need to try that one.


    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.



  13. Lucky 13 Tournament


    Each army must have 13 models.

    Each army must be composed of units from one faction. No Freelance armies. No Mercs, unless the army is 100% Merc. A Merc army may use any of the four Merc factions as long as no mixing Good and Evil.

    No equipment or add ons of any kind. Sorry, spellcasters, no spells.

    There is no point total.



    I haven't given this idea a lot of thought so it may be useless, but I like the idea of no point costs. 13 models vs 13 models. This removes the concept of mosels being worth the points. There are no points! Bring Ivy Crown Archers!





    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.



  14. While I agree that it does make you change up your thinking, your tactics, and your army build, I do not necessarily agree about the favorign one army over another.



    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.



  15. [*]What about 1500 (or 1501) point armies where all models must be at least 50 points or more (after upgrades of course)?

    [*]Or 1500 points where there must be equal number of solos as there are leader led troops?

    I also thought of some that are more scenario based...

    [*]A night fight, where you'd have something like for every 10 inches away the target, RAV and/or spells would have a -1.

    [*]The all cement fight... basically doubling eveyone's movement the entire tire

    [*]Maybe weather related battles, windy or cold that causes affects on ranged or spells, or movement



    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.



  16. Anything with a RA is considered a shooter. Even Lunk. So, if you took Lunk then you could also choose bull orc archers and skeeters and that would count as one of the two factions that you can pull from.


    Thank you. That is what I had assumed. I just wanted to make sure I was correct.



  17. If the Darkthrall Priestess is an evil cleric, I might get a little concerned ::(: The last thing Darkspawn needs is to recruit a Merc cleric. Those pain tokens are all the "healing" they need.


    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.



  18. 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.



  • Create New...