Tactical Command | View topic - Initial AMTL v2.0 Feedback

Page 2 of 4

[ 56 posts ]

Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

View unanswered posts | View active topics View unread posts | View new posts | View your posts

Initial AMTL v2.0 Feedback

Blarg D Impaler

Post subject: Initial AMTL v2.0 Feedback

Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 9:31 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 9:08 pm
Posts: 356
Location: Beavercreek, Ohio, USA

Quote (clausewitz @ 28 Oct. 2005 (12:39))

Blarg, I apologise for the caps, I was merely wishing to emphasis the key part of the concept. ?It was not meant as implication that you wouldn't understand. ?I was just being a little lazy and didnt use the typeset buttons to add the emphasis. ?I have conversed with you a number of times back on the old SG board and have a great deal of respect for your opinions. ?My post was not intended to be contrary to that.

It does change things a lot when you move from tournament style games to campaign games. ?I'm not sure how you would deal with that difference. ?Perhaps you need to come up with your own campaign-style list, based on the tournament one (like your old 'friend' on the SG forum did).

You may well be right that some weapons are more powerful than others (the VMB has been mentioned by others as well). ?But I really wasn't commenting on that facet. ?It is true that if some weapons are so good that they will always be chosen over others then that is a sign that something is wrong.

Thank you for the apology and the kind words, I appreciate them.

Call me crazy, but I don't think there needs to be significant differences between a tournament army list and a campaign army list. Really, when you get down to it for an tournament order of battle, especially for the AMTL, you just need to either pick an all-rounder army and try to adapt tactics to your situation, or specialize your force and tactics and hope that you can pull it off. Beyond that there shouldn't be significant differences between what a tournament AMTL army and a campaign AMTL army can "pick" from. After all, what is "flavor" for an army list? It is the background and perceived typical ways that an army operates expressed in an army list. If there is a need for a "Tournament AMTL Army List" that is different than a "Campaign AMTL Army List" then the first thing that should be done is remove "AMTL" from the title, because you have certainly deviated from the background to create such a thing.

The only other time I have seen seperate items for a tournament -vs- regular play is with the game "Star Fleet Battles" (SFB). In SFB if you want to play in a tournament you have to buy the tournament set of rules which will detail the rules that are to be used, which ones are not to be used, and the special tournament ships that are to be used. Then again, the game makers had to do this because SFB is such a detailed game. It makes E:A look like some haphazardly slapped together game.

It's funny that you mention the "Blarg D Impaler Finland Fanclub" and his campaign lists. If you looked at his website you noticed that he was quite the chess fan. Considering how appealing SFB is to chess players and how the SFB players treat their tournaments, it's not too surprising that he would make campaign army lists as opposed to the tournament lists being generated on the Forums.

_________________
I shot a Deathstrike Missile and destroyed an enemy titan in my pajamas last night. ?How it got into my pajamas I still don't know...

Top

Agamemnon-2.0

Post subject: Initial AMTL v2.0 Feedback

Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 9:32 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2005 9:04 pm
Posts: 3

I don't think the weapons can ever be balanced, so the system that all configurations cost the same should be brought to an end. By giving additional points costs to certain weapons (probably not all of them) a new balancing element is added to the list.

Given the block-constructed nature of E:A armylists, I do understand having a plasma blastgun cost an extra +20 points might well be moot, but I think the concept is not inherently flawed.

Furthermore, I must express my puzzlement that tournament gaming is the prime design directive for a Specialist Game. Heck, GW stores don't even allow you to play Blood Bowl or paint your Inquisitor warband in their premises, so I'd've imagined the games were more "disorganized" and focused around people playing their friends in a more casual setting. Obviously, I am mistaken.

Top

clausewitz

Post subject: Initial AMTL v2.0 Feedback

Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 10:21 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 2:02 pm
Posts: 916
Location: Glasgow, Scotland

Blarg - I guess it depends on the style of campaign. Are the games decided by normal objective/victory rules? Do losses carry over between games? In a one-off tournament style game you can sacrifice as many troops as necessary to win the game, in a campaign you have to weigh losses against the value of winning the battle. And so on.

Its due to all these factors that the army lists are designed specifically for tournament games. (I'm sure there is a more detailed explanation of this in the rule book somewhere).

Top

nealhunt

Post subject: Initial AMTL v2.0 Feedback

Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 10:37 pm

Purestrain

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA

Tournament play is not a prime design directive. Jervis went to great lengths to describe scenario design in the book and encourage people to play non-GT games.

Tournament play should be fair - a level playing field for all participants.

If you change the assumptions by playing scenarios, the relative values of units can change dramatically. For example, if you are playing a breakout where your goal is to get units off the board as quickly as possible, bike formations are going to be more valuable than if you are trying to take and hold territory. That means that no matter what point-system you use, when you start changing scenarios it won't ever be more than a rough guideline and will likely be inherently unfair from time to time.

So...
Tournaments should be fair. A common context is needed for setting point values.

Therefore, the tournament (GT) scenario is the default for determining "balance" in the army lists.

===

BTW, I don't know what the deal is with your GW store, but the one near me regularly hosts SG games and leagues.

_________________
Neal

Top

Agamemnon-2.0

Post subject: Initial AMTL v2.0 Feedback

Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 11:55 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2005 9:04 pm
Posts: 3

Your points are well-made and taken into due consideration. I'd write some more but it's really late, so it'll have to wait until morning.

Top

dysartes

Post subject: Initial AMTL v2.0 Feedback

Posted: Sat Oct 29, 2005 11:51 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 12:16 pm
Posts: 908

It should also be noted that the "tournament" lists are not just for tournaments - they're to give a balanced basis for any pick up 'n' play games you may want to play.

I'm gonna go back though this thread tomorrow and address points raised by it.

Keep cool, guys, keep cool :blues:

_________________
The forgotten Champion - AMTL, baby!

Dysartes.com - Resources for the Modern Wargamer - Last updated: December 2004 - Next Update: In Progress

Sentinels are just young titans that haven't grown up yet!

Top

Lord Inquisitor

Post subject: Initial AMTL v2.0 Feedback

Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 5:55 am

Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 1216
Location: Norfolk VA USA

I know others disagree, but in most 'pick up and play' environments, for all games, its just as often that you know what army you are facing than you don't.

I realise this is called a 'tournament' list, and at tournaments you don't know what you're facing, but as a 'pick up and play' list, I feel that it should stand up to creating a roughly balanced game even if the two opponents know who they are facing.

That said, I'm not commenting one way or the other on whether the weapon loadout is actually balanced, mind. If I was I'd say I think its okay, but it needs loads of playtesting though!

I haven't seen much since my initial lookthrough, and my main points again are:

Very nice, very professional looking list.

Lasguns and Plasma guns just aren't meaty enough for Praetorians. For some reason I see them with multilasers. I think a FF of 4+ could be in order.

5+RA would be perhaps more appropriate than 3+ (although I'm prepared to live with it!)

300 points just looks too much to make them worthwhile, 400 with chimeras. That's nearly a warhound pack. Although that's for playtesting - increased toughness is a hard one to judge!

I have to say I think 450 for a warhound pack might make them more attractive, as opposed to taking lots of single warhounds for activations, even with the legio formations rule.

I really don't like the 'light' classification for scout weaponry. Tygre's suggestion has some merit, although it isn't as simple as all that.

Lord =I=

Top

Blarg D Impaler

Post subject: Initial AMTL v2.0 Feedback

Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 3:17 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 9:08 pm
Posts: 356
Location: Beavercreek, Ohio, USA

Quote (Agamemnon-2.0 @ 28 Oct. 2005 (16:32))

I wholeheartedly disagree with you, I think it is actually quite easy to balance all of the the weapons to be equal to each other. ?The are several problems that crop up:

1) Insufficient playtesting, which I believe we are going to see with this and any other army list, will make attempts to balance the weapons difficult at best.

2) A lot of people equate the use of good tactics and sound forethought with unbalanced and cheesy game-play. ?With a lot of people if you think that you might be facing a horde of infantry, and you arm one of your titans with a bunch of anti-infantry weapons, and you actually face off against a lot of infantry, and you kill a lot of the enemy infantry, you're not a sound tactician but a cheesy ####### and those horrible anti-infantry weapons need to be banned.

3) A lot of people refuse to look at the Big Picture of tactics when looking at weapons combos. ?Sure you can arm a titan to be a WE killer, and it would rock in the titan pit-fights. ?But since we don't pit-fight titans in Epic (not yet at least) you need to look at everything in play. ?Go ahead and arm your titan with 4 Volcano Cannons, but don't be too surprised if it gets jumped and taken down by Terminators or a flock of infantry. ?(Yes, I know, 4 Volcano Cannons are not allowed by the current army list, save it.)

4) A lot of people don't realise that the Imperial Titans have always been, and should be, the Chamelions among the other race's titans. ?Eldar Titans are fire-support oriented. ?Ork Gargants are the line anchors of the Orks. ?Imperial titans are whatever you want them to be, just pick the weapons.

5) The idea of assigning an extra point value is not flawed, just more difficult than it needs to be and you increase the potential that the weapon will be unbalanced compared to others because you have introduced another variable. IMHO I think it is easier (and more logical) to simply make the weapons equal to each other.

_________________
I shot a Deathstrike Missile and destroyed an enemy titan in my pajamas last night. ?How it got into my pajamas I still don't know...

Top

Blarg D Impaler

Post subject: Initial AMTL v2.0 Feedback

Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 3:30 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 9:08 pm
Posts: 356
Location: Beavercreek, Ohio, USA

Quote (clausewitz @ 28 Oct. 2005 (17:21))

Blarg - I guess it depends on the style of campaign. ?Are the games decided by normal objective/victory rules? ?Do losses carry over between games? ?In a one-off tournament style game you can sacrifice as many troops as necessary to win the game, in a campaign you have to weigh losses against the value of winning the battle. ?And so on.

Its due to all these factors that the army lists are designed specifically for tournament games. ?(I'm sure there is a more detailed explanation of this in the rule book somewhere).

My biggest complaint about the Tournament List -vs- Scenario Game playing is that a lot of us older Epic players want something in-between: the ability to play a scenario game with point-balanced (or specifically unbalanced) forces. There are a lot of "Collectors List" items that a lot of people want to have points values assigned to them, but can't because Jervis is deathly afraid that somebody might try to use them in a GW sanctioned tournament.

"Well Blarg, why don't you and your group assign a point value to the Collectors List stuff for your own use?"

Because nobody wants to use other people's house rules or house point values. They want to use the published material, especially for friendly games played at the local hobby shop.

_________________
I shot a Deathstrike Missile and destroyed an enemy titan in my pajamas last night. ?How it got into my pajamas I still don't know...

Top

Blarg D Impaler

Post subject: Initial AMTL v2.0 Feedback

Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 3:37 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 9:08 pm
Posts: 356
Location: Beavercreek, Ohio, USA

Quote (nealhunt @ 28 Oct. 2005 (17:37))

Tournament play is not a prime design directive. ?Jervis went to great lengths to describe scenario design in the book and encourage people to play non-GT games.

Tournament play should be fair - a level playing field for all participants.

If you change the assumptions by playing scenarios, the relative values of units can change dramatically. ?For example, if you are playing a breakout where your goal is to get units off the board as quickly as possible, bike formations are going to be more valuable than if you are trying to take and hold territory. ?That means that no matter what point-system you use, when you start changing scenarios it won't ever be more than a rough guideline and will likely be inherently unfair from time to time.

The easiest way around this is to do what 3rd ed. WH40K introduced - dividing up everything into different categories (HQ, Elite, Troops, Fast Attack, and Fire Support) and limiting how skewed a force you can field.

Or, since you are playing a scenario where you can introduce some special rules without a lot of screaming, set a special rule limiting the number of fast items or mandating a minimum amount of normal/slow stuff.

_________________
I shot a Deathstrike Missile and destroyed an enemy titan in my pajamas last night. ?How it got into my pajamas I still don't know...

Top

nealhunt

Post subject: Initial AMTL v2.0 Feedback

Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 6:56 pm

Purestrain

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA

That's what the GT point values provide - balance for GT and a general guideline for scenarios.

_________________
Neal

Top

Blarg D Impaler

Post subject: Initial AMTL v2.0 Feedback

Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 9:18 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 9:08 pm
Posts: 356
Location: Beavercreek, Ohio, USA

Quote (nealhunt @ 31 Oct. 2005 (12:56))

That's what the GT point values provide - balance for GT and a general guideline for scenarios.

Nobody want "general guidelines." Since GW pushes the whole "It's official or its crap" line everybody wants official numbers.

OK, after a bunch of arguing with my friends (which we don't have the time to do) I'm now supposed to carry on the same argument with other gamers at the local hobby shop because our numbers don't match? I've got better things to do with my time than to argue point values with other players because somebody (Jervis? GW?) is worried about slapping an arbitrary points value onto Collectors Models that they slapped arbitrary stats onto.

The laid back aspect of the Collector's edition stuff is great for small, discrete groups of mature gamers, but that is so contrary to prior communication concerning the whole "tournament" thing coming from GW/SG that it smacks of laziness.

What Epic: Armageddon needs is an area devoted to putting good stats on old figures and conjuring up points costs for them so Veterans can use them in a tournament setting.

All right, how do I get down off of this soap box...

_________________
I shot a Deathstrike Missile and destroyed an enemy titan in my pajamas last night. ?How it got into my pajamas I still don't know...

Top

nealhunt

Post subject: Initial AMTL v2.0 Feedback

Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 10:26 pm

Purestrain

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA

Since GW pushes the whole "It's official or its crap" line everybody wants official numbers...

The laid back aspect of the Collector's edition stuff is great for small, discrete groups of mature gamers,

Dude, where have you been for the last 3+ years?

SG specifically targets that exact type of gamer. GW may push that official line crap because they cater to 14-year old adolescent powerjocks spending Daddy's disposable income, but SG's entire business plan is specifically about targetting people who want something more than that. They've been very clear about that for several years now.

You want 40K's brand of multi-scenario balance? You are welcome to it. It's only balanced over multiple scenarios due to artificial, genericizing restrictions to force org and tactical possibilities allowed within the scenarios. It's a stretch to even call them different scenarios. If you were to design a truly unique scenario, 40K's point balace would collapse.

Personally, I think Epic's single GT scenario offers greater strategic and tactical flexibility and more re-playability than all of the 40K scenarios combined.

_________________
Neal

Top

Lord Inquisitor

Post subject: Initial AMTL v2.0 Feedback

Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 1:03 am

Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 1216
Location: Norfolk VA USA

Not the biggest fan of 40K then, Neal?

Lord =I=

Top

nealhunt

Post subject: Initial AMTL v2.0 Feedback

Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 3:30 pm

Purestrain

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA

Heh. No, I think it's a fine game. I just think that it is watered down more than necessary in order to (supposedly) make it powerjock-proof. The result is that the tactics are based more on the rule-system rather than real world military considerations.

I still play occasionally and have fun, but I don't think the 40K conception of "balance" is a good one to follow.

_________________
Neal

Top

Print view

Previous topic | Next topic

Page 2 of 4

[ 56 posts ]

Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 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

Jump to:

Initial AMTL v2.0 Feedback

Who is online