Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 22 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

Any updates on additions of Admech or Knight faction lists

 Post subject: Re: Any updates on additions of Admech or Knight faction lis
PostPosted: Thu Nov 28, 2019 4:14 am 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 11:25 pm
Posts: 8757
Location: Worcester, MA
That the feedback provided and changes suggested would be incorporated after the approval.

No list is ever locked, approved lists can be changed. Changes to approved lists are hopefully limited to point changes though. I think the most biggest one in recent memory was moving the THawk to the 1/3 ally section.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2018-05-15


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Any updates on additions of Admech or Knight faction lis
PostPosted: Thu Nov 28, 2019 4:29 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2017 11:42 pm
Posts: 72
I'm at a bit of a loss with your response Dave. Having played various mixes of the 2.05 and 2.1 lists, I certainly feel that 2.1 has much more flexibility. At the time it dropped, it felt like the changes went in the direction of the feedback you mention.

Also, Tiny Tim's comment posted in the batrep thread that the list is "in just the right place" doesn't strike me as particularly negative. It feels like someone giving the list the go-ahead. But I don't know him personally, so that really is linguistic speculation on my behalf.

_________________
I know how this one ends
So bite your tongue if you can't tame it


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Any updates on additions of Admech or Knight faction lis
PostPosted: Thu Nov 28, 2019 6:31 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2015 7:21 am
Posts: 8
Thanks for the feedback Dave :) . Just have some questions as I try to understand the approval process beyond what is in the CRaP document.

Dave wrote:
That the feedback provided and changes suggested would be incorporated after the approval.


So you are suggesting they gave approval for the list as it is, but with the expectation, but not requirement, that it would then immediately be changed to reflect the requested changes? That seems counter-intuitive to having an ERC approval at all, unless the document is resubmitted with the changes incorporated and also tested?

Dave wrote:
Specific asks were given for themeing the list as either defensive (shooty robot/rapier formations, static defense laser, trenches) or offensive (allow for cheaper mechanized options, tanks). Beyond those, making the formations more flexible in terms of unit contents.


Few Questions:
1 - How much say does the AC have on the direction of a list?
2 - Are they for instance overruled if they provide an overview of their design goals and counter points to the feedback of a small number of members of the community?
3 - If this is a sticking point, how many members of the community would be required for and against a design goal to get approval?
4 - And then the AC should surely be engaged by the Army List Development (Human)? Or is that one of the currently empty roles in the ERC?
5 - What informs the decision process of the ERC members? Is it up to individual members of the ERC to vote based on their like/ dislike of the design goals alone vs the adherence to the approval process and proof that the list is relatively balanced?
6 - If yes, does that then beg another approval step for the army design goals immediately after the AC sets them so as to save time and wasted effort building and testing a list that fundamentally will not be approved at the ERC level?

Reading the 2.05 and 2.1 threads here it seems the list is aimed at the Core List segment as per AC's comments. With the notion that more aggressive or more defensive list variants of AdMech troops would fill the role of Sub-Lists much like the Sub-Astartes lists provide more niche forces for Marines. Or is it that the list is not "kitchen sink" enough and doesn't provide for enough flavours of play style for the ERC's tastes?

Cheers :)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Any updates on additions of Admech or Knight faction lis
PostPosted: Thu Nov 28, 2019 2:33 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 8:30 pm
Posts: 4176
Location: Greenville, SC
In an effort to be fully transparent about this, here's the feedback I received from the ERC (specifically Dave and Mordoten) on the initial submission for the Skitarii list:

Quote:
Mordoten
So here's my thoughts:

First off i think the list is kinda boring.
And it's also very hard to play with. It is very slow and have expensive units which gives a low activation count.
I'm missing a theme in the list. Right now it neither neither like a defensive nor offensive list. Is just something bland in the middle.

If the theme is supposed to be defensive:
I would add some kind of slow shooty formation like the rapier + robots formation from the EpicUk list. It could be a 6 unit stong rapier squad for 150p with the option to add +2 units for 50p or +4 for 100p.
I would also like some kind of static defense laser 2-3DC WE with 0cm move and 2x4+ MW (TK) or something to give the army some high tech defese bastions. Just something thats feels like it protects a forge world.

If the theme is supposed to be offensive:
Then the army needs to be given more speed. 10 chimedons for 200p is just to expensive. I would rather go for chimeras to keep the cost down (going from 450 to 375 for a mechanized century).

Other stuff:
Other than that i think it's a great idea to lower points for the minoris and also for the avengers (but maybe down gun the some also). With theese changes i might consoider voting yes.

But i lack more troop choices and a clearer theme for sure.


Quote:
Dave:
For me, I find the core formations too rigid and their starting price points too high. Upgrades are expensive as well, and make for an even lower activation count so I never took them. The support formations are costly, and lack a variety as well.

Overall, I found the list made for a slow, foot-slogging army. That's fine, but usually those are your defensive armies which have access to emplacements, artillery or other long range shooting that.


From that feedback these changes where introduced into 2.1:
Minorus chassis dropped by 25 points.
Minorus coy can add an additional minorus for 100 points.
Majoris chassis dropped by 50 points.
Ordinatus gain Fearless
Crusaders, Avengers, Chimedons, Demi-century, Sagitarii, and Secutor upgrade dropped by 25 point
Colossus and Magos drop by 50 points
Carapace Landing Pad to 50 points
Quake Cannons +25 points to 100 points.
Support Missile +25 points to 75 points
Avengers gain +1 Lascannon per unit.
Ordinatus Golgotha (hellfire missiles) stats replaced with 3bp MW, Slow Firing, Indirect, Uses Orbital Bombardment Template. Cost increases +50 points to 200 points

The goal of these changes was to reduce the cost of the army as a whole to allow for a few more formations to be taken addressing the issue of the army point cost being too high.

The remainder are unactionable. I asked for clarification as to what "too rigid" means for the core formations and what "lack of variety" means and or would look like for support formations but I have not received any clarification. I disagree with both of these statements.

EDIT:
Here are my thoughts on the list theme. Mordoten desired lists that were either baked offensive or baked defensive defined by having emplacements of some kind. This list was not intended to be that. It's been in the dev goals for years.
Quote:
Re, theme
Per the dev goals thread here's what I'm aiming for:
1. Slow moving units with limited transport access to represent the implacably methodical almost mechanical advance of AdMech forces.

2. Fewer formations on the table at a given game size compared to other lists to represent the elite nature of the individual AdMech units.

This was supposed to be balanced by Admech having access to long range firepower through Minrous upgrades to the core formations and overall more durable formations.

Basically they are supposed to be in between full offensive and full defensive and ideally function kind of like a moving trench line.

_________________
-Vaaish


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Any updates on additions of Admech or Knight faction lis
PostPosted: Tue Dec 03, 2019 1:23 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 19, 2014 2:21 am
Posts: 601
Location: Australia
Is that is guys?

I'm interested in seeing some more responses from the ERC.

This is really highlighing how the process works and what coul be a fatal flaw in how the ERC operates in list guidance/design


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Any updates on additions of Admech or Knight faction lis
PostPosted: Tue Dec 03, 2019 10:34 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue May 17, 2016 6:42 am
Posts: 504
Location: Birchip, Australia
I'll be honest, I did complain after providing 6 battle reports for the approval process and felt like none of my ideas were considered. Still I feel the list lacks leaders. Could be just a noob but when trying to play aggressive with with the core formations in a corvus or chimeradons not being able to clear blasts really took the punch out of them. They either failed or went in with blast markers.

I dont feel theres a problem with the ERC, not sure what it was like before I came along but I'm guessing there just isnt enough playing groups around anymore to provide feedback.

_________________
I have 4 laptops in this room and cannot play a pixel pushing tabletop simulator on any of them.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Any updates on additions of Admech or Knight faction lis
PostPosted: Tue Dec 03, 2019 2:19 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 11:25 pm
Posts: 8757
Location: Worcester, MA
I unplugged for the Thanksgiving holiday, the plan was to respond Monday but we had 18 inches of snow drop in my town and power/internet has been spotty.

D_Arquebus wrote:
So you are suggesting they gave approval for the list as it is, but with the expectation, but not requirement, that it would then immediately be changed to reflect the requested changes? That seems counter-intuitive to having an ERC approval at all, unless the document is resubmitted with the changes incorporated and also tested?


I don't know, I'm paraphrasing another's post and having trouble following what you're thinking and where you're going. I will say that major changes after the fact should be followed up with testing and resubmitted. However, if it becomes apparent through tests that, for example, 100 points is too much for an upgrade and it should 75 points that AC's can mention minor stuff like that when they submit. We'll either vote it in with the approval, or approve without it and you can test some more.

D_Arquebus wrote:
How much say does the AC have on the direction of a list? [clip...]


1) It's their list, so they determine that. However, they don't exist in a vacuum, and I would hope that they take and incorporate the feedback of playtesters to create a balanced list.

2-4) You're always going to find people giving their opinions on TacComms, an AC is free to ignore them or not. Incorporating them would hopefully garner more games, feedback and a better list. Ignoring them likely would not.

5) For a new list, I look at the battle reports of the playtesters to get their prospective on it. I try to build an overpowered list and a list that I think would give a fair game. I look at the reports and see if any of the overpowered stuff has been tested, and what the opponents/results of the games were. I try to play it if I can. Ultimately I'm trying to judge if the list is fair to the player and the opponent, relative to lists like Codex, Steel Legion, Orks and Black Legion (what I see as the most common/balanced armies).

There's plenty of stuff I don't like that I've voted for approval on, and there's stuff I liked that wasn't approved. There's a lot of ways to make a balanced list, and I don't have to like a list so long as all the people who put work into it are getting what they want out of it.

So I don't think we need more red tape and votes for anything beyond what we have. Anyone can write a list and stick it up on the forum, have some conversation with themselves and change the list every day for a couple of weeks. Go nuts, no one's here to tell you that you have to do it differently. To get approval though you need buy in from 2-4 other groups, I don't see why you would ignore people who took the time to play 4-6 games with play a list, post pictures, summarize the activations and provide feedback. If they haven't done a single report for you then go ahead and ignore them, but reward the people working with you by working with them.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2018-05-15


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 22 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  


Powered by phpBB ® Forum Software © phpBB Group
CoDFaction Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net