| Brood Brother |
 |
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 9:08 pm
Posts: 356
Location: Beavercreek, Ohio, USA
|
(Evil and Chaos @ Sep. 21 2006,03:51)
QUOTE
World history is full of examples where the "popular" viewpoint was the wrong viewpoint.
Yet Deomocracy is generally regarded as a good thing... 
Yes, it is. ?But this is not government, this is rules development for a game. ?Be careful trying to wrap yourself in the majority that answered your rather vague poll and then using the tyranny of the majority to force your viewpoints. ?While what you are trying to do is not a completely bad idea, and has merit to be argued for academic reasons, trying to ram it down other's throats because a statistically insignificant majority seem to agree with what you are doing can backfire on you.
The best I am hoping for at this juncture is for the 'multi-costers' (That's most of those who voted) to want to coalesce around a single system ('patterns' or 'weapons costs') for convinience in pickup battles. It may be a long time before we have a system that is balanced for Tournament play after all.
As a set of home-rules nobody, including myself, would have any problems with what you are doing. ?But you did not clearly enough state your intentions in the begining to make other people think that was what you were doing. ?If you think that this is going to make it to official tournament rules then you need to prepare yourself for me, and maybe others, to make a big stink.
We're both adult enough to know the pros and cons of both systems. God knows they've been raised enough times in this thread. We've just come to different opinions. This isn't because I'm a 40k player and you're not, as Blarg seems to gently insinuate (I play 40k once a month if that in any case), and it's not because assigning points is more simplisitic (Quite the opposite, it creates a more complex system & game experience), it's just that we're seeing two sides of the same coin, and seeing both sets of potentialities that lie there.
I insinuated that you play WH40K?!?!? ?I re-read my message and, I'm sorry, I don't see where you got that from. ?That was one of my last concerns about you as I wrote my posting. ?And while I don't care for the current WH40K rules (I'm more of a WH40K 2nd. ed. guy myself, if I still played it) I really don't care if you play WH40K or not. ?You go right ahead and play WH40K, I encourage you...
1) The Bland Balanced Force: Take a well balanced force of infantry, armor, and super heavy tank, supplemented by a Reaver or Warlord armed with an array of weapons: Volcano Cannon and/or Plasma Cannon, Gatling Blaster, Vulcan Mega Bolter and/or Chain Fist.
Balanced force? I think you'd quickly see everyone settle on a loadout that consisted of a majority of Gatling Blasters, with a single Volcano cannon. With no impediment of cost, the most effective weapons in this case would be those that can deal the most ammount of hits to the widest array of targets per turn. The alternative is the one-shot wonder plasma Titan. Mega Bolter or Chain Fist would quickly find itself replaced in such an army IMHO.
If all of the weapons were balanced then your preference for the general purpose Gatling Blaster would be valid. ?But in the AMTL 2.0 rules posted the VMB and the Chainfist would be your best bet because you get more bang for your weapon mount with them. ?Part of the reason why I picked the weapons I did was, assuming that they were all balanced to each other, you not only have weapons that can engage a variety of targets, you also have a variety of weapons that have certain strengths, allowing you to tailor your fire dependent upon the situation. ?While a Warlord armed with 4 Gatling Blasters would be exceptionally flexible, especially against INF and AV, it would have problems trying to take out a war engine that would more than likely have reinforced armor.
2) The Titan Fire Support Force: The IG player goes heavy on infantry and armored vehicles, with no super heavy tanks or Deathstrike missile launchers, complemented with a Warlord armed with a variety of Volcano Cannon (TK support), Quake Cannon (BP MW support), Deathstrike Missile (TK knockout support), and Plasma Cannon/Destructor (MW support).
Taking no Deathstrike missile trucks is the IG player's first mistake. 
His Titan also no longer fits the AMTL 2.0's Titan construction rules. he's taken all Support Choices (And one collector's choice)... it would be a considerably effective Titan (And worth a lot of points...) if it were a legal configuration. He'd have to take off two of the big guns and replace them with Tactical choices (Probably Turbolasers in this theme), and then he'd be left with a 2xTurbolaser, Volcano Cannon & presumably the Deathstrike Missle (Since he took none elsewhere)... which would compliment the army nowhere near as well as his illegal megatitan.
The lack of a Deathstrike launcher was supposed to be made up for by mounting one on a titan weapon mount. ?Eh, no big deal...
Yes, this titan I mention is illegal under the AMTL 2.0 rules. ?To be honest, I completely forgot about that silly rule. ?I'm touching upon a completely seperate "discussion" here, but I have always held the position that if all of your weapons are equal to each other then there should not be any restriction on what weapons you throw in the weapon slots, and it is from this belief that I wrote the above. ?In touching upon yet another seperate "discussion" I also believe that the weapons list should be long and varied, and anything in the Collector's Section should be fair game, assuming that it is balanced against the other weapons, and it is from this belief that I wrote the above.
3) The Titan Tactical Support Force: The IG player goes heavy on infantry and super heavy tanks with no Leman Russ tanks taken. ?A Reaver with all Gatling Blasters and Turbo-laser Destructors is used instead of the Leman Russ Company.
Fair enough, Gatling Blasters & Turbo Lasers for the IG. I'm starting to see a pattern emerge here.
They don't have a strong need for TK or even MW power, so they find number of shots more useful.
Actually the pattern is: build a force with a hole in it and fill the hole with the titan and prudent weapons selection. ?In the case of Reaver = LRuss company you are looking to replace the pile-o-battlecannons and lascannons with the GB and TLD.
4) The Titan Storm Force: The IG player goes as desired on infantry and armored vehicles and heavy on super heavy vehicles and artillery. ?A Reaver or Warlord is taken armed with a Chain Fist and/or Power Fist, Plasma Cannon, and Vulcan Mega Bolter so it can assault and take objectives.
The Titan is proportionately too expensive for its task and weapons load, forcing proportional capability cutbacks in the army as a whole. At some point during the game the Titan is destroyed by ranged fire, or a FireFight on unfavourable terms, since its two CC weapons mean nothing to an enemy that is manueverable enough to fight on its own terms, yet which cannot be encircled by an extra IG formation (Say one that was bought with the points savings from taking a CC config Titan under a points-for-weapons system...).
Umm, titans excell at taking objectives, and since they are roughly on par with the cost of an IG company they are not too overpriced. ?Yes, the titan would have a problem with FF, but you can either vary the weapon load or support it with a formation of IG guardsmen, who happen to be pretty good at fire-fights.
We haven't even discussed whether weapons should be balanced to each other, nor have we hit upon whether a points system is a good idea. ?
That is happening in the Poll thread.... seems 80% of people think a points system is a good idea so far.
So what? ?Prohibition was voted into place. ?Several pro-slavery issues here in the USA were voted in place. ?Even president Jimmy Carter was voted into office...
_________________
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...
|
|
), and report back with your opinions from game experience.