Jump to content

Proving grounds: the few, the proud


Akela
 Share

Recommended Posts

The cost of all units was raised, the cost of all upgrades was raised... the cost of an ACE crew for a Rhino is about the cost of a base Rhino with the JoR numbers...

 

Now this is my impression purely, but some people will not be happy until one of two things happens:

 

1.- Artifical limits, aka army lists. This will scare many people who do not like GW for that reason.

 

2.- All ACE crews go away.

 

This is my impression purely, and I hope I am wrong.

 

nadin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 64
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Moderator

It is my strongly held opinion that it isn't broken, and we shouldn't try to fix it.  I can see TFTP being a good tournament rule, but I don't see a need for it to be anything more than that.

 

Everyone has their Ace/Ace Rhino phase, and everyone has their Panther/Mortars phase.  You learn that it isn't fun, and you go on to other things, or other people who aren't having fun against your army stop playing against you.

 

The points are high enough that an Ace/Ace anything, much less a Rhino is not feasable for me in any case.  I'd rather have two or even three more models on the table for that cost.  If someone's being a problem with their constant fielding of all Aces, then outflank him and swarm him with all your regular or veteran crews.  If you can't beat it, be innovative until you do.  If you can't beat it because you're like me and never roll over a 5 on a D10, then I'll commiserate with you, but it's not because of the other guy's ace crew.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Froschmeister I agree with you 100%.    I don't undertand why anybody would pay what a ACE/ACE rhino cost.  Frankly I would rather a oponent get the Uber Rhino than for them to get Two Regular Rhino's for the same cost.  I would rather face the the One Uber Rhino than two Regular Rhino's.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sheesh, some of you guys are whining like this is already written in stone.  TFTP is simply a scenario rule that easily allows an event organizer to put some simple limits on the armies being used, yet allows the players flexibility in how they build their forces.

 

Does it outlaw Ace crews? No, and I don't necessarily think that they should be banned.  But it does require the player to use 9 (2:1/3:1) or 12 (3:1) other models in order to use that Ace.  And that's considering that all of the base models are Vets, not Regular.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No Chrome I understand.   Frankly in specific Senerio's I have no problem with the TFPM.  Then again in a Senerio I have no problem with any house rules.     What I don't want to see is TFPM made into the way you have to play unless the senerio state's otherwise.      See even though I am not a ACE crazy person and don't use the Uber Rhino I would have a problem with the rule's being changed to were I couldn't do that if I didn't want too.    

 

Taking on ACE crews just isn't a issue to me they in my opinion cost to much as it is.  So with any army I want to build I can't afford to use too many ace crews if I use them at all.   As I stated before i don't belive the ace crews are the problem I belive the problem some have is having the incorect type of force to deal with another.  When there is a problem

 

But as long as "The Few the Proud the Many" stays a optional or better yet just call it a house rule.   I like the term House rule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chrome what you call whining is me playing devils advocate and going absolutely for worst case scenario... not to mention expressing my feeling on this.

 

That said... lets try to think outside the box and see how you kill a fully tweaked rhino.

 

1.- The four dictators that Kevin mentioned.

 

2.- Tsusikei, more effective, can stay out of range and are soft targets to boot.

 

Personally I think Tsusikei and those Denka Missiles, with a range of 40 are made to kill Rhinos.

 

3.- You really want to get insulting? 1218 worth of infantry with mortars, fully tweaked out. Heck even if they are NOT tweaked out and have a combo of mortars and DF Missiles, chances are that they will bring that fully tricked out Rhino down... mostly due to the law of averages.

 

Those were the ways I could think of over dinner. I am sure I can think of even more... I mean for that ammount of points, following Russian Doctrine and overwhelming you with a 10:1 advantage, should not be too hard, depending on the choice of gear. Heck I might just run that exercise for the heck of it.

 

Now you want to limit them in the Realm of Optional Rules or House Rules go for it... as part of a sceario or campaign fully agree, but that is what scenarios are suposed to do. But hey... this is only a game... and yes if for any reason these became core rules... I can see some problems with some current players... and I have already pointed out to a growing feeling that army lists do limit creativity by players to a point.

 

I have also pointed out that one big selling point of CAV is that ability to build to your heart's desire and not be tied down to an army list. You have no idea how liberating that can be to a GW player who sees a "different way of doing things" after years of being tied down to quite static army lists... now add to that no coherency rules, and you will get the point even more.  

 

Me I do not mind army lists, as a tool, but I'd prefer that army list to stay within the realm of a set scenario, or historical gaming where an actual order of battle is known. Oh and before you say it, I do play GW games, mostly for the distraction... then again I have made a point of NOT learning the rules very well... I have enough with the rules I need to know inside out... so I trust my gaming budies to know them.. and use Army Builder files for my GW armies, mostly because it gets very confusing when you make static lists... and even with those lists, the Imperial Guard will have its head handed to it by Chaos Marines on a regular basis... point for point the Chaos Marines are "better." The Imperial Fleet will have a hard time with Eldar fleets in BFG, and this is a point system that HAS established and play tested army lists. I fear this kind of a result where players will start playing the Codex of the month for CAV, because the Malvie list is better or perceived to be better, than the UFF list. Yes it works if you want to sell... but from a gaming perspective it is not fun. I do not care what I do to my list, or what I add to that list, my I-Guard will have some trouble with most army lists from other codexes. Yes I can play it and win, but that does not mean that this so-called solution to game balance problems does not have its own problems. (Of cousre if I spent half the time I spend reading CAV and other games that matter to me for other reasons, reading GW codexes, I am sure I would have an easier time cracking those nuts).

 

:p

 

Now these are some observations on gaming and the philosophy of gaming. Take them with the grain of salt they obviously should be taken. But I will keep playing devils advocate and present worst case scenarios.

 

Nadin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally will be using TFTP as a de facto scenario rule in any event I run short of a tournament, but I will always state this. I think it's a very nice little optional rule that adds something to the game... it adds character to an army. Just my opinion.

 

However, this is the final thing I think crew upgrades need. And only because it means everyone's using the same guidelines to write their rosters. No more.

 

Banning ace crews... #### no. I like my Ace/Ace Ogre with an armour and repair upgrade and a Maxim in lieu of a Herker. It's fun, and the fact it can hurt anything on the table is neither here nor there. So what, it's 1400 points of CAV. It's only for tournaments and fluff driven scenarios anyway :o)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to agree with the way the wind's blowing here- TFTPTM works well as a Scenario Rule, but if I'm playing a small game as part of a campaign, and I want a mish led by my ACE/ELITE unit commander but supported by his newest recruits to baptise them in fire, I don't want that uneasy "I'm breaking the rules" feeling to do it. Perhaps I'm naive, but I beleive that most players can be self regulating, and if some aren't, then their opponents' reticence to play them should slowly get the message across. And those crews are REALLY pricey (we DL'd the revised costsand my group's ace lover nearly fainted!)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a person who plays some fringe games that pride themselves on statistical balance, I can tell you that IF the points are balanced, super-big one trick ponies will get snotted by a mass of mid-quality troops. It's a matter of how many kills the super-rhino can expect to inflict in one turn. I'm reading that it can expect three kills on big expensive targets, or three kills on small cheap targets. To me, this suggests an obvious tactic.

 

Also, as someone who is lloking at CAV , at least because of the cool minis, i will not play the game if I can't tool my force up exactly as I see fit, without reference to five ratios or more. One or two limits on points is OK, but telling me to spend all points in three or more cascading ratios is a quick way too lose my attention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ulyss spoken truly like the way I meant it. If these are optional rules and you choose not to use them, you are not breaking any rules.... if they become part of the core rules you might have that uneasy feeling until... you realize that

 

A) there is no game police, and nobody will come in and fine you, or worst case drag you out to game police jail... what do they do there? Play Space Opera all day? Or just create characters for Space Opera all day?

 

B) you are free to do whatever you want to do in your house, aka house rules.

 

Final point, those rules actually belong in the realm of house rules, not even as optional rules, but that is my opinion.

 

Nadin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is nothing wrong in putting the rules out as senerio/optional rules so that they will be avalible to players who may feel they have a need for them.

 

I know I can't fault your opinions and how you've based them, as I agree with you.

 

It's still good to be able to share these opinions and atleast get a feel for how others understand the same topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wolf I have no problems with optional senerio or House rules.  I just want to make clear that sometimes what people think is the main problem they are suffering from isn't when you look closer.  And Two that while those type rules are fine they shouldn't be made as Core rules.       I expect to see new Core rules from time to time.  But those type of changes should only be done when something is broken
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well there are many reasons why I do not like where the winds are blowing regarding artificial limits...

You know, that's really funny.

 

We get guys screaming, "Realism, Realism, Realism" all the time...  Up until the point where we try to put a kubosh on muchkinism.

Then, its "Hey, it's a game."

What the heck???

 

When I was in the Gulf War my unit had maybe 4-5 guys that served during the last major US conflict (Vietnam), even less in the other minor conflicts just before them.  Out of a few hundred.

That means, out of a few hundred of us, only a handful of us were even veterans.

 

When you look at it from a realistic standpoint, generally, MOST (that means all but a rare select few) are going to by Regular troops.  In case of Mercenaries (where they do fight a lot, but there's also an enormous casualty rate), you'll have more vets in the mix.

 

But, aces and elites are just that.  The best of the best, the cream of the proverbial crop.

I guess you could say the Rangers, SEALs, Special Forces, Top Gun and what not would be a modern day equivalent to Ace and Elite units.  How many do you think they are, in comparison to the regular armed forces?

 

Let's use a little common sense here, folks.

Ace and Elite crew upgrades are cheap munchkin tools!  That's all they are and, while good in moderation, are bad for the game if used too much.

 

You all speak about how limiting GW army lists are...  Might I remind you about the Munchkin, Cheese Boxes that were rampit throughout BTech!  Don't any of you remember that?

I sure do...  Man, it was next to impossible to get a game with just stock 3025 mechs.  Everybody, I mean EVERBODY wanted custom gear.  It was insane.

 

Ace crews offer munchkins a cheap, easy way of adding +3 to their die rolls.  There's no tinkering with their CAV, no power or weapon slot concerns, no figuring out if this gun can go on this chassis or not...

And, when you're looking at a cut off result of 4 or better to do damage, +3 mods are HUGE!

 

And, I'm here to tell you right now...  It's not good for the game.

 

Here's an example:  I went to one of my Thursday Gaming Nights at Hobby Workshop some time back.  I had a bunch of new players they were learning how to play CAV.

Anyway, this guy shows up with a boat load of tricked out CAVs with Ace/Ace crews in them.  He ripped them a new one, in no time at all.

They weren't too happy about that, and, I've been running damage control ever since.

 

Heck, I'm even guilty of the cheese mongering.  Ask Andrew Tobin, he'll tell you.

I thank him now for reminding me that this game is a Mecha Wargame...  Not a Custom CAV Show.

 

The Few The Proud is a great rule and it's a long time coming.

There's a reason GW is so popular...  Maybe one of those reasons is actually because the army lists do a good job in keeping the Munchkins at bay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This looks like it'll run and run...

 

My personal feeling is always that ACE/ACE crews are not cheap by any means, but that aside- the split in opinion on this topic highlights (for me anyway) that this rule should probably be optional. By optional, I mean why not include it in the main rules, but state that scenarios or other factors can "break" the rule. In essence, it'll regulate those incapable of self regulation (I still think they can be taught though!) while giving other p[layers the freedom to ignore it. My thining here is from the point of view of new players, not existing ones, who won't have had the benefits of this forum to understand the thinking. What is needed is a clear, simple approach that offers everybody the option they want. I have no doubt there are loads of reasons why this wouldn't work though... :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Who's Online   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 148 Guests (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...