Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
rcrosby

Balancing quality and quantity

Recommended Posts

I don't see the rules as being broken. They should be tilted slightly towards quantity since, unless the quality is overwhelming and everything else is equal, numbers do matter.

 

Capping the support bonus at +1 max would dramatically shift the balance towards powerful models over grunts.

 

Also, I don't want to see rules being added to "fix" perceived problems without very, very careful consideration. Part of the attraction for Warlord is that people can pick up the game easily. Start adding rules here and there, and, before you know it, you get a rulebook the size of the new Battletech rulebook or Star Fleet Battles.

 

Ron

 

EDIT: Whoops, originally was very unclear in the second sentence. Edited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't see the rules as being broken. They should be tilted slightly towards having numbers of quality since, unless the quality is overwhelming and everything else is equal, numbers do matter.

It is not even close:

Ymrilix = #MA 3, MAV 5 = 167 points

4xWarriors = #MA 4, MAV 5 = 84 points

 

or rather:

Ymrilix = #MA 3, MAV 5 = 167 points

8xWarriors = #MA 8, MAV 9 = 168 points

 

It would be much more balanced if:

Ymrilix = #MA 3, MAV 5 = 167 points

8xWarriors = #MA 8, MAV 3 = 168 points

There would still be a small edge for numbers, just not the previous overwhelming advantage. And there would now be a reason to take the big guns - it would be the only way to get the really big MAV's!

 

The other option would be to recognize that the big Models are overpriced and adjust their costs down (a lot).

 

Rich

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The other option would be to recognize that the big Models are overpriced and adjust their costs down (a lot).

 

Rich

 

Or go the other way. Add 10 points to the price of every model.

 

I have seen Ymrilix plow thru more than his points in grunts a number of times tho.

 

PS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Or go the other way. Add 10 points to the price of every model.

 

I have seen Ymrilix plow thru more than his points in grunts a number of times tho.

That's a good idea, too. Maybe +50% just for soldier models instead of a fixed cost for all models. That would maintain the balance between the costs of different grunts instead of having the largest effect on the cheapest grunts.

 

Rich

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah let's base this on actualy play statistics. ow many people are actually experiencing this being a problem?

 

Are tourneys dominated by swarm armies? Not speculation, I'm asking about actual feedback. I have no idea since I've baerly gotten Warlord started here in Denmark.

 

Also how often can 8 models usually support eachother? Not against a model on a standard base that's for sure. The Warriors coul max get +5 support versus a model on a standard base. Charging in and letting your hero get swarmed should not be rewarded. If you manage to get yourself surrounded by 6 armed guys it should not be something you're likely to walk away from.

 

An unsupported 200 point hero should get beat up by 200 points of soldiers IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are tourneys dominated by swarm armies? Not speculation, I'm asking about actual feedback. I have no idea since I've baerly gotten Warlord started here in Denmark.

I would not base it on tourneys. I believe that a typical swarm army needs at least 5 turns to make full use of its advantages which is outside the realm of a time-limited tourney.

 

Rich

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suggested tourneys because thery're usually more competitive. But the question still stands. How many people are actually seeing swarm armies dominate the local Warlord scene?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
An unsupported 200 point hero should get beat up by 200 points of soldiers IMO.

Why? I see lots of people say this. Such an attitude means that 200 point heroes will always be worth less than 200 points of something else. Example: 200 pt hero + 200 pts of supporting grunts vs 400 pts of grunts. 400 pts of grunts ignores 200 pt hero and kills all 200 pts of supporting grunts. In the meantime, 200 pts of supporting grunts kills 100 pts of enemy grunts and 200 pt hero kills 100 pts of enemy grunts. Result = 200 pt hero vs 200 pts of grunts, which by your definition is automatically won by the grunts. A 200 pt hero should have an even chance against 200 points of grunts or else the system is out of balance.

 

Rich

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well because a single mini is easier to control. Why bring 200 points of soldiers that are hard to coordinate in order to be effective, when I can just bring a 200 point hero instead. I see the tactical aspects of Warlord going south if it's just as effective to rush a single powerful mini up to the enemy as it is to coordinate a big group of soldiers.

 

My experience is that a hero with support will actually do better than an equal (pointswise) group of soldiers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually LIKE the fact that heros can be taken down by a swarm of grunts as well. I want a hero to have to be somewhat concerned about wading into the middle of a horde.

 

I hear there's another game out there for people who want their heros to be untouchable by grunts...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An unsupported 200 point hero should get beat up by 200 points of soldiers IMO.

Why? I see lots of people say this. Such an attitude means that 200 point heroes will always be worth less than 200 points of something else. Example: 200 pt hero + 200 pts of supporting grunts vs 400 pts of grunts. 400 pts of grunts ignores 200 pt hero and kills all 200 pts of supporting grunts. In the meantime, 200 pts of supporting grunts kills 100 pts of enemy grunts and 200 pt hero kills 100 pts of enemy grunts. Result = 200 pt hero vs 200 pts of grunts, which by your definition is automatically won by the grunts. A 200 pt hero should have an even chance against 200 points of grunts or else the system is out of balance.

 

Rich

 

Aside: I actually think a 200 point hero with 200 points of grunts can be very effective against 400 points of grunts. It's the 200 point solo hero vs 200 points of grunts that doesn't work.

 

At ReaperCon we saw a bunch of swarm armies. Willbill frequently posts about armies without elites. Gus Landt builds armies with no elites, the cheapest possible sgts (and captains), and enormous numbers of guys, even when he's not fielding a stupid number of archers. At the most recent SFMTGP, Ranz brought as many soldiers and cheap sgts as he could field, along with the cheapest solos. Rich brought more skeletal breakers than you could shake a stick at.

 

Is it a world shattering conundrum? No. It's a play style I personally don't like. I don't like to look over my enemy's forces and think "there's not a single model there worth hunting down." I'm fine playing without any changes to the rules, because I call for 1501 games, which means there's a Warlord worth killing.

 

PS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aside: I actually think a 200 point hero with 200 points of grunts can be very effective against 400 points of grunts. It's the 200 point solo hero vs 200 points of grunts that doesn't work.

 

And there we have it, the heart of the issue: Supporting your heavy hitter. No elite ever fights alone. No solo or leader does for that matter either.

 

Rcrosby, remember the pickup game we played after the last forgewalk tournament? My army had a few heavy hitters and some infantry, and your army had 3ish trolls, Ssudai, and various infantry. You outnumbered me, but what did me in were your trolls and Ssudai. Your trolls went down, for sure, but they pulled half of my army down with them. In the main battle line between your infantry and mine, we did about equal, except where your leaders were - they inflicted more damage than anything else on the line. Ssudai neutralized my bear with a well-timed spell. My Griffon, honestly, I played very poorly.. allowing you to swarm it. That doesn't mean that swarm is overpowered, it means boneheads who rush their birds into the clutches of a horde of reptiles are underpowered :down:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So I think Arbiter's right that this game's made for a more full environment and a less open environment.
What? Someone agrees with me?!? Well, I guess there's a first time for everything. ::D:::D:::D:

 

While it says it's not a rule, it provides a guideline - 6-10 pieces of terrain per player!

That's so funny -- I totally forgot about that part of the book when I wrote my post! So my feeling that the game is designed around more terrain actually has some basis other than just my playing experiences.

 

Because Overlord Warriors are now Adepts, so you;re limited to how many troops you can field.

True, Warriors are now adepts. So, you'd be forced to take spearmen if you wanted a cheap melee model to fill out other troops. However, since you can now have only one troop of Overlord warriors, wouldn't that make it even more likely that you'd want to take as many of them in that one troop as possible and not "waste" any slots with spearmen?

 

I was actually just using the Overlords as a specific example for the question I am raising, which is: are Reach support models worth their points in an open battlefield? Going back to Crusaders, Ivy Crown Skirmishers are grunts and have the same basic stats as Ironspines (MAV 2, DV 9) but they also have Tough/1 (compared to no Tough for the Ironspines) and are one point cheaper. Unless the battlefield makes it very difficult to manuver and surround your opponent, why bother taking Ironspines? Yes, you can use them with Knights and get the Reach/Trencher combo working, but the same point about simply surrounding enemy models rather than trying to use Reach support still applies -- that is, load up on knights, surround your enemy and get the close combat support bonuses AND additional attacks, all with higher DV models that also have Tough to boot.

I find that the only use for spearmen in the open is to prevent First Strikers getting first strike . Also the Crusader Knight/ Ironspine combo works well but only defensively , when I attack , I bring the Ironspines around to add their attack and damn the support . :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the problem is with support but rather with the unit structure. There is really no negative to being out of formation or out of the leader's range. There should be some *bad* effect when your leader dies.

 

Now don't get all Warhammery on me, Ranz!! :lol: I think having a sgt killed should require nothing bad to happen. The same goes for a captain. A warlord? Ok, maybe I can see having your king bite the dust right in front could cause some issues. :devil:

 

Wild Bill :blues:

 

you mean beyond losing some major firepower in your army?

::P:

Share this post


Link to post
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.   Paste as plain text instead

  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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...