|
The thing is, the activation system has had a very strong influence on list design. Many small formations exists in lists because the lists need activations, or taking certain options would have been too restricting if they weren't provided in small cheap formations.
Of course such a ruling (I'm thinking of offering passes to the army which has the less activations left) would offset balance; actually, that's the point.
It would, as pointed, probably affect it more for lists that are themed around large chunks of points in single formations, like titan lists, that were then designed to overcome the problem. Actually, for lists like the OGBM or the AMTL, a lots of the hard work in designing them was balancing the large stuff against the activation-centric aspects of tactics in E:A. It is my belief however that a few point hike and a few formation changes would probably be sufficient to rebalance such lists.
For example, during initial development, thunderbolts and marauders were originally in a formation of 3, which were felt to be good for their points (I don't remember the price ATM), but would cause many player to forego air options because it would eat too much activations. They were therefore cut to a formation of two. They could return as a formation of three for a substantial price hike, and still be useful. If titans and other large stuff get too good, a price hike could help balance them. Perhaps warlords would need adjustments in price in the AMTL list but be more balanced as-is in marine and IG armies. Maybe a pair of Warhounds would be worth two Warhounds.
Keep in mind that with the system Ginger proposed lastly, in the example of a low activation count AMTL vs high activation marine example, some measure of balance would be provided by the fact that the one allowed to pass is the one that currently has less activations.
It means that the marine can retain a lot without losing as much activation wise, and it may also help make combined assault with commanders more attractive (although compared with the fire, then support mechanism, it would still need work). I agree this might not be sufficient to keep a Titan list balanced, specially as they were designed from the beginning to be able to overcome the activation problems, but the mechanism in itself is I think quite interesting.
Some formations that are emblematic but too much of an "activation sink" under the current system, like tank companies and large artillery formations for the IG, (but huge kitted out Warbands or bug swarms could go there too) would probably be more workable and easier to balance. If they need to cost a bit more than they do ATM, quite often after having received some point decrease over the year to help make them more attractive despite the activation sink they were, so be it.
Formations of super heavies (SHT, engines of Vaul) would also be more attractive, compared to the strong incentive to take single units at the moment.
The importance of the activation count makes pricing strongly non-linear; this directly imply a very hard work to balance individual units that fall outside of the 250-350 points bracket to make them interesting against those; it also makes whole lists hard to balance and severely restrain the possibilities of army building as you have to keep that number very clearly in your mind if you want a competitive list, some might say first and foremost. Actually, most advices and debates in all the "list building advice needed" threads on this very forum revolve around the activation count. It might be inspiring for list designers to be able to make cumbersome large formations armies that can actually work with the rules, and widen the scope and variety of the themes available.
Now, I understand that the prospect of having a good look in many lists that are more or less stable under the current system to rebalance some of their bits might be daunting (this is, I think, the real core of the debate), but :
1) I actually think the current lists could possibly work much better as they are than one might think. The meta game would certainly change, and players would probably modify their army, but the balance would not need that much adjustments I think, in most lists anyway.
2) E:A is about 8 years old now; we have to accept that with that experience, some flaw of the system are showing, and should possibly be addressed. Kind of a new development cycle.
I actually think a set of optional rules to be playtested (by those who want to, obviously) with the lists as they are could be a very nice thing to make.
That would make a sort of an E:A 1.5. Some other good candidates for a possible revision would be the Aircraft rules (some of us have strong feeling about flak rushes and AA fortress building with planes), and some rationalising of the unit/weapons special rules, to get some of the most interesting/most useful ones out of the lists and into the rulebook.
Developing it as a set of optional rules/rewrites would allow tournaments and such to proceed as they want, list development to continue as normal (with possible development forks or notes if different pricing/formation size depending on the set of rule are really needed).
Of course some other, minor items could be considered as well, like for example the commander ability possibly not being as worthy as it should; but for relatively minor issues like this one, I think the current development process can handle them if needed, albeit probably in a slower fashion - but conservativeness is to be expected from people who try to achieve balance in a scene with many tournaments.
The status of the FAQs, army books, etc, are already pointing to it; ideally we would need a new rulebook, with consolidated FAQs and erratas at least. If we were to do it (I know, I'm getting into wishful thinking territory), even in a numeric LRB form, it would be the right time for some part of the rules to be overhauled if needed.
Does anyone think such a set of optional experimental rules, as a "1.5" package in development, would be an interesting idea ?
Last edited by Athmospheric on Fri Jul 22, 2011 2:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
|
