Tactical Command
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/

Why the differences in army lists?
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=8507		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  javelin98 [ Wed Jan 31, 2007 5:52 pm ]
Post subject:  Why the differences in army lists?
In building my army-builder spreadsheet, I've found that I have to make the functionality of the three factions I have (SM, IG, and Ork) different for each faction.

* Marines have Detachments that can have Upgrades.

* IG have Companies, which can have two Support Formations and three Upgrades.

* Orks have Types, three formation Sizes, and Extras.

What on earth...?  Of the three, the IG are the most straightforward and the Orks are the most complex.  And it just seems silly that each of the three should be entirely different than the others.  Programatically, it's a pain in the tush.  My Excel-fu is strong, but I do wish the Powers That Be had seen fit to come up with one method of structuring all army lists that would have been standardised and logical but would also allow the flavor of each race/faction to come through.

And I haven't even looked at the Chaos or Eldar lists yet... who knows what dark maelstrom their alien minds will conjure up in the name of army-list order.
Author:  Evil and Chaos [ Wed Jan 31, 2007 6:05 pm ]
Post subject:  Why the differences in army lists?
Eldar are entertainingly complex. :)


I quite like the different armylist structures.

It means that:

- Marines can pick whatever they like (The right scalpel for the right operation)

- Orks get discounts the larger their formations get, and the variety of formations that can be built is very varied (You really get the sense that the list was designed with the chaotic nature of an Ork army in mind)

- The IG have a nice 'operational' list structure, that means if you want rare units you have to take a solid core first in order for the 'hq' to deem your force large enough to be worth attaching expensive rare assets.

- The Tyranids can build practically any list structure they like, as long as they have Synapse creatures, because 'nid swarms are incredibly varied in the background.

- etc.



So basically, I prefer Epic's freeform list construction to Warhammer Fantasy's constrained (although balanced) Core/Special/Rare formula, or Warhammer 40k's absurdly dumb Force Organisational charts (Which do not scale, so all tournament games of 40k should be not 500points distant from 1500pts or the system just breaks down daftly).
Author:  colonel_sponsz [ Wed Jan 31, 2007 6:12 pm ]
Post subject:  Why the differences in army lists?
if you don't like those, don't look at the Tau...  :alien:

I made a random army generator using PHP, which is a full programming language, and it was still a real mess.  I can't begin to imagine how much of cluster funk that would be in Excel :(

Orde
Author:  Dwarf Supreme [ Wed Jan 31, 2007 6:15 pm ]
Post subject:  Why the differences in army lists?

(Evil and Chaos @ Jan. 31 2007,12:05)
QUOTE
I quite like the different armylist structures.

As do I. I think it's a good way of giving each army more character.
Author:  Lord Inquisitor [ Wed Jan 31, 2007 6:25 pm ]
Post subject:  Why the differences in army lists?

(javelin98 @ Jan. 31 2007,11:52)
QUOTE
What on earth...? ?Of the three, the IG are the most straightforward and the Orks are the most complex.

Funny, I've always thought the Imperial Guard army list the least easy to follow of the three. The distinction of Company Upgrades (added to a Company), and Support Formations (totally independent from the Companies) isn't that obvious. Not that you need a phd to follow it, but I don't agree that the orks are the most complex - you have each formation and what upgrades it can have in one table... easy!
Author:  Evil and Chaos [ Wed Jan 31, 2007 6:29 pm ]
Post subject:  Why the differences in army lists?
I'd say the Marines are the simplest army list, all formation sizes are pre-set (No messing with Mob, Big Mob, 'Uge mob), and the list of upgrades is simple and low in number (Unlike the IG which has quite a variety of upgrades and upgrade types).
Author:  Markconz [ Thu Feb 01, 2007 12:32 am ]
Post subject:  Why the differences in army lists?
I agree that the different types of lists are important to give each army character, just not so good when you are trying to Excel them.

A database of spreadship types made by generous users prepared to share them could be helpful for people perhaps? (hint, hint :;):)
Author:  Lord Inquisitor [ Thu Feb 01, 2007 12:37 am ]
Post subject:  Why the differences in army lists?

(Hena @ Jan. 31 2007,12:29)
QUOTE
Actually simplest IMO is Marines. Only formations and upgrades.

Never said they weren't...  :p
Author:  javelin98 [ Thu Feb 01, 2007 12:49 am ]
Post subject:  Why the differences in army lists?
I've already written up the IG sheet, which was the easiest by far.  The Marine sheet is killing me -- I'm trying to incorporate all the different possible upgrades -- up to two Vindicators or four Land Raiders and a Commander, etc., etc.  I've been using data validation to make drop-down boxes, but the problem is using the IF() function in a data validation forumla is limited to seven nested IF's, and I need eleven or so.  Grrr...
Author:  Legion 4 [ Thu Feb 01, 2007 6:22 am ]
Post subject:  Why the differences in army lists?
Don't like the E:A Army lists/method ... we use a hybrid system based mostly on SM1 Templates/TO&Es ...   The E:A are a bit convoluted, IMO !
Author:  CyberShadow [ Thu Feb 01, 2007 10:49 am ]
Post subject:  Why the differences in army lists?

(javelin98 @ Jan. 31 2007,23:49)
QUOTE
I've already written up the IG sheet, which was the easiest by far. ?The Marine sheet is killing me -- I'm trying to incorporate all the different possible upgrades -- up to two Vindicators or four Land Raiders and a Commander, etc., etc. ?I've been using data validation to make drop-down boxes, but the problem is using the IF() function in a data validation forumla is limited to seven nested IF's, and I need eleven or so. ?Grrr...

Have you dealt with the thorny issue of replacing transport Rhinos with Razorbacks as well?  :)

And, I dont think that the Tau organisation is complicated... it is pretty much the same as the IG, except for the auxiliaries.
:alien:
Author:  javelin98 [ Thu Feb 01, 2007 2:33 pm ]
Post subject:  Why the differences in army lists?

(CyberShadow @ Feb. 01 2007,01:49)
QUOTE
Have you dealt with the thorny issue of replacing transport Rhinos with Razorbacks as well? ?:)

I have, although it brought up a good question.  Devastators can upgrade to both Razorbacks and Land Raiders... so could they potentially take four Razorbacks (since the standard loadout for a Devastator formation would be two Rhinos, which have double the capacity of Razorbacks) and four Land Raiders as well (since the wording of the upgrade is "add" and not "replace").  Is that correct, or am I reading that wrong?

And I guess I see what everyone is saying -- the different army list structures do indeed give the different factions flavor.  But they're a pain in the butt from a programming standpoint!
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/