Angel_of_Caliban wrote:
I mean why, regardless of race list, would an OT match up 1 player with the same armylist 3 times in a row when (I'm pretty sure unless he's winning, might be a ladder thing were not on the same page on?) other equal choices are available. I mean Player A plays AMTL and loses or wins and then 2nd round instead of matching him with another AMTL player of the same rating match him with another player?
The Swiss System takes account of the level of winning score, VP's earned etc, so after the first round the tournament organiser doesn't generally have to intervene all that much to settle who plays who in subsequent rounds as players soon begin to separate out based on how well they're doing. It's not just win/lose/draw that's tracked.
Quote:
@E&C: I think what I'm really trying to get at is "What does AMTL WG list have to do to be THE list in your supplement?" like a list of demands/requests.
Demands eh? Okay, it should be:
1- More balanced than the Legio Destructor list.
2- More tactically interesting to play against than the Legio Destructor list.
3- Should not have a viable "play for a draw" auto-win playstyle available.
4- All weapons should be viable choices.
5- Fix other concerns too.
1 I've played LD myself already and I'd say it is currently a fail
2 From the reports I've had back in PM the most important note was that regardless of remaining balance issues the LD list was instantly more tactically interesting to play against than the WG list.
3 Both lists currently a fail.
4 WG list weapons that are IMO currently not worth taking: Support Missile (All flavours), Quake Cannon without CLP.
5 For example there's also an issue with weapon costing, for example it costs the same to take 3 Turbolasers as it does to take 2 Turbolaser and a Laser Blaster, despite the latter being simply better.
Some players downunder even refuse to pay the multi-weapons surcharge, which fixes the imbalance with Battle Titan weapons but unbalances mono-fit single Warhounds quite noticably.
