 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
Pen dull
Super Moderator
| Joined: | Wed Apr 13th, 2005 |
| Location: | Madison, Wisconsin USA |
| Posts: | 1896 |
| 40k Armies played: | 12+k Orks 2+k Marines 1k Eldar. |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
|
Posted: Tue Nov 4th, 2008 05:39 pm |
|
I think you are underestimating the fragility of 60 orks. Anyone who wants to break them can with a good assault squad.
And certainly, a single tank shouldn't contest an objective by itself when the objective is surrounded by hoards of little dudes.
I think there are military actions in our recent past that verify this as a real-world kinda-thingy.
You know what I mean.
____________________
"How is that even possible?!?"- Milkman
"Everybody can take all summer to build one flyer a piece.... Bam instant flying retard fest." - joe
"When you die, I'm gonna cry a little." - Derling
|
Derling
Administrator
| Joined: | Wed Apr 6th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1445 |
| 40k Armies played: | Tau, Space Marines, Space Wolves, Imperial Guard, Eldar, Tyranids, Orkses |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Nov 4th, 2008 05:47 pm |
|
Pen dull wrote: I think you are underestimating the fragility of 60 orks. Anyone who wants to break them can with a good assault squad.
And certainly, a single tank shouldn't contest an objective by itself when the objective is surrounded by hoards of little dudes.
I think there are military actions in our recent past that verify this as a real-world kinda-thingy.
You know what I mean.
this is in regards to Twaimn's post, yes?
____________________
There are two things I know to be true. There's no difference between good flan and bad flan, and there is no war.
|
HDEagle71
Administrator
| Joined: | Wed Mar 30th, 2005 |
| Location: | Milwaukee, Wisconsin USA |
| Posts: | 1016 |
| 40k Armies played: | All of Chaos, Dark Eldar, Tau, Sisters, Orks |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Nov 4th, 2008 05:50 pm |
|
Pen dull wrote: I think there are military actions in our recent past that verify this as a real-world kinda-thingy.
To quote you serveral times in the past show me and orc or a big shoota in real life then we can talk about real tactics in Military history.
Go to historicon you commy 
Oh and to twain if only there was some way of equalizing a bunch of week guys in mass vs some elite units or tanks hmmmm I am stumped.......OH YA VICTORY POINTS COMES TO MIND!
Sorry it did work before they could have refined it not deleted it from the scenarios.
I am just an instigator today I watched Conan the Barbarian last night and I am all pumped up! What is the meaning of life?
Destroy your Enemies
See them flee before you ....
and fuck their women
____________________
My Armies are Not Cheesey But they Still Stink
The Admins Suck :-)
|
Derling
Administrator
| Joined: | Wed Apr 6th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1445 |
| 40k Armies played: | Tau, Space Marines, Space Wolves, Imperial Guard, Eldar, Tyranids, Orkses |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Nov 4th, 2008 06:01 pm |
|
HDEagle71 wrote:
Destroy your Enemies
See them flee before you ....
and fuck their women
emmm...almost as poetic as the original....
____________________
There are two things I know to be true. There's no difference between good flan and bad flan, and there is no war.
|
twaimn
Super Moderator
| Joined: | Mon Apr 4th, 2005 |
| Location: | Milwaukee, USA |
| Posts: | 543 |
| 40k Armies played: | it's easier to ask what I don't play |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Nov 4th, 2008 07:41 pm |
|
Pen dull wrote: I think you are underestimating the fragility of 60 orks. Anyone who wants to break them can with a good assault squad.
And certainly, a single tank shouldn't contest an objective by itself when the objective is surrounded by hoards of little dudes.
I think there are military actions in our recent past that verify this as a real-world kinda-thingy.
You know what I mean.
having just tried to break 30 orks with 10 wyches, I can safely disagree.
while it IS indeed possible to knock 60 orks off an objective, the amount of force required to do it would probably offset without the need to make each of those orks count as 2 models for victory purposes. one lemann russ isn't going to cut it. especially with the new vehicle assault rules. I'm more afraid of an army that can recycle gaunts or put 200 troops on the table than the one with three russes. or even 30 devs (though I think that's scarier than 3 russes, in some cases.)
The point of the original suggestion, as I understood it, was to prevent a senario where we're back to only two small troops squads, and spending the rest of our points on toys from other parts of the list.
to me, however, that's not the problem with derlings original suggestion of
"number of models within x inches."
to me, having that be a victory condition inherently gives advantage to whomever can put the most models on the table. it doesn't matter if you don't kill a single marine. or if he kills you 2 to 1. at the end of the game, if you're putting 3 down for every 1 of his, you're still going to win.
by giving troops the ability to count for two models when counting models in range of objectives, you're excentuating this advantage, because the player who can put out three to one odds is almost exclusively doing it in the troops selection.
---
in cityfight, there is a senario where you capture objectives (buildings, usually) simply by entering it. once done, you can leave the building, and it remains yours until someone else takes it.
perhaps that could be done for our senarios as well... play with more than normal numbers of objectives, and once you take an objective, you get a point a turn you hold it.
this is going to give immediate benifit to the army that can put the largest number of fast units on the table, but those armies will also be more fragile. by giving kill points, a slower army can keep up with a blitz army, and even outlast him, as once he kills the quick objective taker, it's just a matter of taking it for himself.
this is also not a perfect scheme, and I'm sure there's glaring holes.
but point em out! how do we mesh all of the ideas? what's the best way to limit exploitation?
____________________
Hank: Brock, if pirates really exist, I mean, Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy could even be real, right? It's like all bets are off!
Brock: Hank nobody ever said pirates don't exist.
Hank: So you agree with me that this is impossible.
|
Derling
Administrator
| Joined: | Wed Apr 6th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1445 |
| 40k Armies played: | Tau, Space Marines, Space Wolves, Imperial Guard, Eldar, Tyranids, Orkses |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Nov 4th, 2008 08:01 pm |
|
twaimn wrote: to me, having that be a victory condition inherently gives advantage to whomever can put the most models on the table. it doesn't matter if you don't kill a single marine. or if he kills you 2 to 1. at the end of the game, if you're putting 3 down for every 1 of his, you're still going to win.
We've actually played this scoring condition numerous times (even you partook in many of those) and I can't say any of these game necesarilly even EVER went to the guy who brought the most models. These were freindly games and often multiplayer, so the legitimacy of the results are automatically just. But It does give me strong pause to agree with you that mass numbers guaruntees success(as it never has).
I'd like to see this scoring condition tested in multiple army matchups and see how it turns out. I'd personally like to see it work sans double-pointing the troops. I'd like to witness results.
Sure, your poorly equipped wytches(no wytch weapons and "always strike first" combat drugs against orks!?) couldn't shift a 30 man squad, but your 100pt thunderfire cannon seemed to do a great job by it's lonesome the game before, killing off 9-10 per volley. Your wytches also had the disadvantage of having the rest of their army purely focussed on killing my battle wagon instead of softening up my boyz. It was really a worst case scenario for the wytches, poorly equipped, an uphill fight, and no support.
I would really like to see how games of this nature actually play out, more than dismissing them based on speculation... I would guess the the GW Scenario rules got that luxary. It's quite possible they wouldn't work. but we really won't know unless we try them in a solid and fair test process.
Last edited on Tue Nov 4th, 2008 08:10 pm by Derling
____________________
There are two things I know to be true. There's no difference between good flan and bad flan, and there is no war.
|
twaimn
Super Moderator
| Joined: | Mon Apr 4th, 2005 |
| Location: | Milwaukee, USA |
| Posts: | 543 |
| 40k Armies played: | it's easier to ask what I don't play |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Nov 5th, 2008 02:11 am |
|
I agree.
while my wyches were not built correctly, I agree, they were fighting shoota boys, with 1/3 fewer attacks than a regular squad. the problem is fifth addition. small crack assault groups in fourth relied on rolling in and killing their kill zone. these days, I can kill 15 orks at initiative 6, and you still have 30 attacks comming out of the left overs, hitting on 4s, wounding on 4s. hand to hand isn't want it was against big squads anymore.
as I said to you earlier, I agree that our previous tests with this did not show an overwelming propesity to the most models winning, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't happening, just that we didn't notice. not also, that multiplayer games are not legitimate tests in my opinion, because A. we purposely ignore the results as it's too 'random' and B. multiple players allows for people teaming up on the player with the most models, which I have the feeling happens naturally, in the spirit of good play... he's got 6 big units, we wont feel as bad attacking him from two sides, rather than smushing the really small elite force between us. I dont think its a concious decision, but I think it prolly happens.
____________________
Hank: Brock, if pirates really exist, I mean, Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy could even be real, right? It's like all bets are off!
Brock: Hank nobody ever said pirates don't exist.
Hank: So you agree with me that this is impossible.
|
Pen dull
Super Moderator
| Joined: | Wed Apr 13th, 2005 |
| Location: | Madison, Wisconsin USA |
| Posts: | 1896 |
| 40k Armies played: | 12+k Orks 2+k Marines 1k Eldar. |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Nov 5th, 2008 04:40 am |
|
What I meant.
1) Real-world kinda thingy: I meant, you can have a whole crap-load of tanks in a country, tons of military hardware-- but if you don't have a solid force of men on the ground you don't hold shit. There are plenty of times when people notice that tanks roll down main street, but until your soldiers are in all the buildings you don't really hold anything. It didn't really have anything to do with communism, but as the brits might say, "it's a fair cop."
2) Double-model thing: I didn't mean to insinuate that one model counted as two for "x models around an objective." What I mean was, it would maybe be better if any unit or vehicle could claim an objective, but that a Troop unit would trump a non-troop unit as counting as "double" the objective. It was just an idea.
3) Fragility of orks: I still think you overestimate their hardiness. Twelve berzerkers can wipe out 25 of them without blinking. Five assault terminators can wipe them out in a single combat without charging. So can striking scorpions. Death company. I know these are big examples of hard-ass units, its just that I don't think you can really debate with me about how easy it is to kill 20 orks if you shoot them with a LRC or Dire Avengers. We are talking about single-phase kills, not even single turn kills of a unit. The guys have a 6+ armor save an a re-rollable leadership of 7. It isn't a wound count that kills them, it is the "make a Leadership at -8" that kills them.
I think a number-of-models system is inherently flawed. It might be remedied by a player being allowed to place more importance on a scoring unit that would make it worth more than other units that could claim or contest. For example, if I were to make a Troops unit of grots a "priority" unit, it could trump another non-priority unit on the board for claiming or contesting.
Just an idea.
confidential to twainm: the reason why your wytches failed is because you were playing against derling.
____________________
"How is that even possible?!?"- Milkman
"Everybody can take all summer to build one flyer a piece.... Bam instant flying retard fest." - joe
"When you die, I'm gonna cry a little." - Derling
|
Derling
Administrator
| Joined: | Wed Apr 6th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1445 |
| 40k Armies played: | Tau, Space Marines, Space Wolves, Imperial Guard, Eldar, Tyranids, Orkses |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Nov 5th, 2008 12:55 pm |
|
twaimn wrote: I agree.
while my wyches were not built correctly, I agree, they were fighting shoota boys, with 1/3 fewer attacks than a regular squad. the problem is fifth addition. small crack assault groups in fourth relied on rolling in and killing their kill zone. these days, I can kill 15 orks at initiative 6, and you still have 30 attacks comming out of the left overs, hitting on 4s, wounding on 4s. hand to hand isn't want it was against big squads anymore.
I think what has now become a Tactical requirement for killing an large scale squad is softenning up a unit before assaulting it with almost ANY kind of assault unit(though there are still some units that will be able to accomplish this, See Khorne Beserkers Vs Orks). Mutually supporting units are the wave of the future my friend...and nothing you're saying in this regard equally affects the current scoring system as much as it would mine.(in fact, it did for the wytches, as it happened under the 5th edition scoring system) I think if you rolled them wytches into 10 space marines, you would have seen similar results. Wythes are just not ELITE enough to destroy a full strength,tough, and undamaged unit.
twaimn wrote:
as I said to you earlier, I agree that our previous tests with this did not show an overwelming propesity to the most models winning, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't happening, just that we didn't notice.
It also doesn't mean that it happens in the inverse. Also, since not ALL these games occured under the pretense of multiplayer games(your focus) and we STILL did not observe the propensity for large armies winning...I think it does bear some merit.(2 of these games actually happened during an VERY "analytical" time between you and me and nothing was observed then.)
twaimn wrote:
not also, that multiplayer games are not legitimate tests in my opinion, because A. we purposely ignore the results as it's too 'random' and B. multiple players allows for people teaming up on the player with the most models, which I have the feeling happens naturally, in the spirit of good play... he's got 6 big units, we wont feel as bad attacking him from two sides, rather than smushing the really small elite force between us. I dont think its a concious decision, but I think it prolly happens.
there was a missing NOT in one of my key sentences in that post, though in the followup sentence it should have been clear that I was suggesting that Multiplayer games do not make for great testing. I think we all know we all know that. Our later phone conversation also revealed my intent.
I would actually like to see what games like these play like under normal gaming conditions. "Number of models within X inches" MIGHT be inherently broken...it also might not be. In my experience, theory rarely has the effect on the gaming table people think it has. Otherwise, we might have seen use of the thundefire cannon before we did.
____________________
There are two things I know to be true. There's no difference between good flan and bad flan, and there is no war.
|
Derling
Administrator
| Joined: | Wed Apr 6th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1445 |
| 40k Armies played: | Tau, Space Marines, Space Wolves, Imperial Guard, Eldar, Tyranids, Orkses |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Nov 5th, 2008 01:02 pm |
|
| Another change I'd make(and I thinm I mentioned this somewhere earlier, though maybe not in regards to this topic), is that I'd push general scenarios to put objectives more to the "no man's land" and allocate points for time spent holding the objective. This, I think would eliminate games won by last minute pushes. Note: not all objectives in all scenarios types would go this way, but I'd like to see about half.
____________________
There are two things I know to be true. There's no difference between good flan and bad flan, and there is no war.
|
Derling
Administrator
| Joined: | Wed Apr 6th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1445 |
| 40k Armies played: | Tau, Space Marines, Space Wolves, Imperial Guard, Eldar, Tyranids, Orkses |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Nov 11th, 2008 03:38 pm |
|
Pen dull wrote:
I think a number-of-models system is inherently flawed. It might be remedied by a player being allowed to place more importance on a scoring unit that would make it worth more than other units that could claim or contest. For example, if I were to make a Troops unit of grots a "priority" unit, it could trump another non-priority unit on the board for claiming or contesting.
This is interesting, as it SEEMS like your concern is the inverse of Twaimns. Am I correct in thinking this?
Could you define exactly how you consider the rules to be "inherently flawed"? While I disagree with Twaimn's ideas on this (mostly in line with the reason you mentioned).
Pendl on the left of me, Twaimn on the right, here I am stuck in the middle of a correctly working non-inherently-flawed scoring system with you.....
____________________
There are two things I know to be true. There's no difference between good flan and bad flan, and there is no war.
|
Pen dull
Super Moderator
| Joined: | Wed Apr 13th, 2005 |
| Location: | Madison, Wisconsin USA |
| Posts: | 1896 |
| 40k Armies played: | 12+k Orks 2+k Marines 1k Eldar. |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Nov 12th, 2008 09:14 pm |
|
No, I was agreeing with this:
"to me, however, that's not the problem with derlings original suggestion of
"number of models within x inches."
to me, having that be a victory condition inherently gives advantage to whomever can put the most models on the table. it doesn't matter if you don't kill a single marine. or if he kills you 2 to 1. at the end of the game, if you're putting 3 down for every 1 of his, you're still going to win. "
That, I think, is the inherent flaw to "number of models" victory conditions. I was suggesting that a player could put a value on a certain unit getting there, as if the commander was saying "make sure the engineers get to the top of the hill!"
Priority units could make the game more interesting.
____________________
"How is that even possible?!?"- Milkman
"Everybody can take all summer to build one flyer a piece.... Bam instant flying retard fest." - joe
"When you die, I'm gonna cry a little." - Derling
|
Derling
Administrator
| Joined: | Wed Apr 6th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1445 |
| 40k Armies played: | Tau, Space Marines, Space Wolves, Imperial Guard, Eldar, Tyranids, Orkses |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Nov 12th, 2008 09:18 pm |
|
Pen dull wrote: No, I was agreeing with this:
"to me, however, that's not the problem with derlings original suggestion of
"number of models within x inches."
to me, having that be a victory condition inherently gives advantage to whomever can put the most models on the table. it doesn't matter if you don't kill a single marine. or if he kills you 2 to 1. at the end of the game, if you're putting 3 down for every 1 of his, you're still going to win. "
That, I think, is the inherent flaw to "number of models" victory conditions. I was suggesting that a player could put a value on a certain unit getting there, as if the commander was saying "make sure the engineers get to the top of the hill!"
Priority units could make the game more interesting.
So you DO think larger armies will always win in a "number of models within X"? okay.
I do find the concept of priority units to be a contrived, silly, and possibly broken concept.
____________________
There are two things I know to be true. There's no difference between good flan and bad flan, and there is no war.
|
Pen dull
Super Moderator
| Joined: | Wed Apr 13th, 2005 |
| Location: | Madison, Wisconsin USA |
| Posts: | 1896 |
| 40k Armies played: | 12+k Orks 2+k Marines 1k Eldar. |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Nov 12th, 2008 09:27 pm |
|
Derling wrote: Pen dull wrote: No, I was agreeing with this:
"to me, however, that's not the problem with derlings original suggestion of
"number of models within x inches."
....
Priority units could make the game more interesting.
So you DO think larger armies will always win in a "number of models within X"? okay.
I don't think always, just that if the emphasis is on the number of models, strategy might be skewed towards a hoarde army mentality, or min-maxing how many guys you can put on an objective jackassery.
I do find the concept of priority units to be a contrived, silly, and possibly broken concept.
Just like that? In what way would it be contrived? Why would it be silly? How would it be broken?
Wouldn't you say that currently the rules make Troops units ultra-priority, and put all the emphasis on them? What if you could lessen that ultra-priority by making a single unit more important to objectives than others?
It would increase the level of strategy, increase the level of a narrative storyline (if you cared for such a thing), and even out the Troops-take-all scenarios we currently are left with.
____________________
"How is that even possible?!?"- Milkman
"Everybody can take all summer to build one flyer a piece.... Bam instant flying retard fest." - joe
"When you die, I'm gonna cry a little." - Derling
|
HDEagle71
Administrator
| Joined: | Wed Mar 30th, 2005 |
| Location: | Milwaukee, Wisconsin USA |
| Posts: | 1016 |
| 40k Armies played: | All of Chaos, Dark Eldar, Tau, Sisters, Orks |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Nov 13th, 2008 12:53 pm |
|
Pendle's Quote: "Wouldn't you say that currently the rules make Troops units ultra-priority, and put all the emphasis on them? What if you could lessen that ultra-priority by making a single unit more important to objectives than others?
It would increase the level of strategy, increase the level of a narrative storyline (if you cared for such a thing), and even out the Troops-take-all scenarios we currently are left with. "
That is an insteresting idea my only concern again if say troops where worth 2 pts per unit and everthing else was worth 1pt would that still over favor horde armies.
That might be worth playtesting.
Last edited on Thu Nov 13th, 2008 12:54 pm by HDEagle71
____________________
My Armies are Not Cheesey But they Still Stink
The Admins Suck :-)
|
Derling
Administrator
| Joined: | Wed Apr 6th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1445 |
| 40k Armies played: | Tau, Space Marines, Space Wolves, Imperial Guard, Eldar, Tyranids, Orkses |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Nov 13th, 2008 01:01 pm |
|
HDEagle71 wrote: It would ...even out the Troops-take-all scenarios we currently are left with. "
How so? as far as I have read, Priority Units have to be preexisting scoring units(meaning usualy troops), so this changes nothing in regards to troops-take-all. It only highlights a single troops unit to do it even better. I think one of it's primary drawbacks is that some armies have access to uber scoring units like Nobz and Bikers, which would invariably ALWAYS be the form these Engineer "Priority units" would likely take.
I actually like the Priority unit concept for specific missions, but not as an add-on to the general scoring unit system.
____________________
There are two things I know to be true. There's no difference between good flan and bad flan, and there is no war.
|
HDEagle71
Administrator
| Joined: | Wed Mar 30th, 2005 |
| Location: | Milwaukee, Wisconsin USA |
| Posts: | 1016 |
| 40k Armies played: | All of Chaos, Dark Eldar, Tau, Sisters, Orks |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Nov 13th, 2008 01:25 pm |
|
Derling I may have missed it but what would you recomend the old VP or 1 pt per unit with in 3" of an objective?
The only downside I see tot he 1pt per round you have the objective is that while everything else is going on we forget to increment the points etc.
Although maybe we could something like LoTR where the bar move from the light side to the dark side you could have a slide and if you have an objective and the other person has one as well the bar stays in the middle but as you have more each turn the bar starts to increment to your side.
hmmmm
____________________
My Armies are Not Cheesey But they Still Stink
The Admins Suck :-)
|
Wolf Man
Member
| Joined: | Wed Apr 27th, 2005 |
| Location: | Sector Obscurus, Maryland USA |
| Posts: | 3057 |
| 40k Armies played: | Space Wolves - all other armies are for support |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Nov 13th, 2008 02:08 pm |
|
Can we stick to the theme of this forum please?
God, I fucking hate GW sometimes... fuck.
____________________
With these paws, I thee type, for Russ.
|
Derling
Administrator
| Joined: | Wed Apr 6th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1445 |
| 40k Armies played: | Tau, Space Marines, Space Wolves, Imperial Guard, Eldar, Tyranids, Orkses |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Nov 13th, 2008 02:57 pm |
|
Wolf Man wrote: Can we stick to the theme of this forum please?
God, I fucking hate GW sometimes... fuck.
how come when I said that, you made fun O me, ya hypocrite!
____________________
There are two things I know to be true. There's no difference between good flan and bad flan, and there is no war.
|
Derling
Administrator
| Joined: | Wed Apr 6th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1445 |
| 40k Armies played: | Tau, Space Marines, Space Wolves, Imperial Guard, Eldar, Tyranids, Orkses |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Nov 13th, 2008 03:16 pm |
|
HDEagle71 wrote: Derling I may have missed it but what would you recomend the old VP or 1 pt per unit with in 3" of an objective?
The only downside I see tot he 1pt per round you have the objective is that while everything else is going on we forget to increment the points etc.
Although maybe we could something like LoTR where the bar move from the light side to the dark side you could have a slide and if you have an objective and the other person has one as well the bar stays in the middle but as you have more each turn the bar starts to increment to your side.
hmmmm
I'm not sure what I'm suggesting yet... though I lean towards trying the "number of models within X distance".
Back to ripping on GW rules... One of the things I've perpetually disliked since I've played with the 5th ed rules(and to some degree in 3rd and 4th eds as well) is the idea of of some nearly destoryed unit(like a single overly lucky scout sgt) whos's able to contest a heavily defended objective by an overwhelming force because "the force was with him". It often promotes play factoring WAY more on luck. (as the scout sgt game showed as clear as rain).
The game should have some clear capacity to discern someone having a stronger hold on a objective than the other, and I don't think the concept of GW scoring units accomplishes it. NumberOfModels does this well, though it might create some imbalancing issues. I also think on tallying point per objective held per turn also helps with this, though it also adds the need ot keep track of points which I'm not a fan of if it turns out too hard (though I think it does promote a more "Take AND HOLD" sort of play rather than a "Take on turn 6" style.)
I'm a bit scrambled ATM for Better answers, but I do know I think the GW scenario system sucks.
____________________
There are two things I know to be true. There's no difference between good flan and bad flan, and there is no war.
|
Current time is 03:54 am | Page:   1 2 3 4   |
|
|
|
|
