It is currently Mon Jan 25, 2021 5:36 am


All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 60 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: What do you think of Drastic Rules changes?
PostPosted: Thu Mar 13, 2014 4:41 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 1:25 pm
Posts: 99
I think the biggest problem is that we currently allow things in the game that wouldn't have passed the play testing that you think that newer things should have to compete with. That artificially keeps the 2++ stars and buffmander+tide more relevant than it should because you feel that other options (not just talking destroyers) you may decide are OP.

If you're going to make new units have to live up to some standard of play testing, but not hold other things to the same standard, then what's the point?


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What do you think of Drastic Rules changes?
PostPosted: Thu Mar 13, 2014 5:25 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 10:16 pm
Posts: 709
Well, they did nerf the 2++, and there's been some serious discussion of dropping Battle Brothers which would cut out another big chunk of issues.

_________________
Draigo will **** you up!


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What do you think of Drastic Rules changes?
PostPosted: Thu Mar 13, 2014 6:18 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 19, 2013 12:34 pm
Posts: 338
DarkLink wrote:
Well, they did nerf the 2++, and there's been some serious discussion of dropping Battle Brothers which would cut out another big chunk of issues.

I seriously hope they do NOT go that route.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What do you think of Drastic Rules changes?
PostPosted: Thu Mar 13, 2014 6:42 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 10:16 pm
Posts: 709
It would be an extremely good move. If you're playing casually, there's nothing you can do with Battle Brothers that you can't do with Allies of Convenience. If you're playing cheesy armies, there's a ton that you can do with Battle Brothers, but virtually nothing that anyone would reasonably consider abusive that you can do with Allies of Convenience. It's a win-win.

Regardless, that actually directly highlights my points. We have enacted many of the nerf that we can. Maybe we need a few more, maybe we don't, but that has no bearing on whether or not the new rules should be allowed in the game.

Say you've got a building. An engineer tells you that two or three of the beams in your building are rusting and might fail, bringing the whole place down. The best solution is to repair those three beams. You don't need to repair the beams around it and hope it works, you need to repair those three specific beams. And just because, say, one of the beams is in a position where you will have trouble repairing it, does not mean that you should not repair the other two easily accessible beams.

_________________
Draigo will **** you up!


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What do you think of Drastic Rules changes?
PostPosted: Thu Mar 13, 2014 6:57 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 19, 2013 12:34 pm
Posts: 338
Like I pointed out, the nerk to battle brothers directly changes and army. It doesnt allow people to play the army they want still.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What do you think of Drastic Rules changes?
PostPosted: Thu Mar 13, 2014 7:17 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 10:16 pm
Posts: 709
Maybe if you ban allies of convenience. Since no one's proposing that, I don't know what your complaint is. I have literally only ever seen battle brothers used to bring cheesy combos. It's always, always, always and allied farseer/riptide/chapter master on bike/buffmander/wraithknight/etc, and that's it. Even when I see, like, allied Dark Angels, it's only for their plasma/rad grenade bikes. It kind of makes me unsympathetic when people complain "but without Battle Brothers, I can't make the army I want". Nut up, and just use allies of convenience.

_________________
Draigo will **** you up!


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What do you think of Drastic Rules changes?
PostPosted: Thu Mar 13, 2014 7:29 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 19, 2013 12:34 pm
Posts: 338
But we dont want to. We want to build the army we want. No tournament should ban significant changes like that


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What do you think of Drastic Rules changes?
PostPosted: Thu Mar 13, 2014 9:44 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 10:16 pm
Posts: 709
You... can still build the army you want. If we downgrade all battle brothers to allies of convenience, then you can still take all the exact same armies and combos you want, you just can't Fortune the O'vesa star or a Beastpack or gain Hit and Run on your Seer Council. Works out for everyone. I took Eldar as allies of convenience to the LVO, and it was good, but balanced.

Unless you're saying that you want to be able to arbitrarily combine random units from different codices together like some power ranger mecha suit. In which case, again, I have no shits to give.

Let me ask you this. Since every single BB army out there is perfectly legal if we downgrade them to AoC, what actually is your argument? BB is pretty widely considered to be extremely abusable. Are you contesting that? Comparatively, AoC is very functional and can bring you some powerful pairings, but nothing broken. Are you saying AoC isn't good enough, because frankly that's bullshit. AoC gives you just enough freedom to take useful, potent allies, but just enough restriction that you don't run into the balance issues that comes with BB. What part exactly are you disputing?

_________________
Draigo will **** you up!


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What do you think of Drastic Rules changes?
PostPosted: Fri Mar 14, 2014 4:15 am 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2013 10:24 am
Posts: 402
Location: Mechanicville, NY
As an Ork player, I approve of banning Battle Brothers. LOL

As a thought experiment, let's imagine if EVERY army were Battle Brothers instead. What would happen? Well, EVERY ARMY would have a 2+ re-rollable of some variety. Almost every army, no matter the flavor, would be the same. How boring is that? Well, it's the same thing we have now except only a handful of armies get to do it.

I think, in the interest of a diverse field of battle, banning Battle Brothers is really the path of least resistance. Having said that, I really think it would make Daemons EXTREMELY popular, more so than they are now.

The difficult part is that the real issue lies in the fact that a re-roll to saves is inherently broken by it's very nature. A re-roll on saves is better when you have a better save to begin with. It's an exponential bonus. This makes it an EXTREMELY volatile rule fraught with the danger for abuse. I don't believe the game designers really thought it through. I think they assumed it'd be like re-rolling to-hits. That's not the case. Hitting all the time is nowhere near as powerful or important as saving all the time.

The only real and true way to fix re-rolls on saves is to completely alter how it works on a fundamental level and I don't think any T.O. (myself included, even as small-time and local as I am) has the balls to do that.

_________________
Image


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What do you think of Drastic Rules changes?
PostPosted: Fri Mar 14, 2014 4:24 am 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2013 10:24 am
Posts: 402
Location: Mechanicville, NY
Re-Roll to Saves: Sometimes a special rule grants a unit a re-roll to its saving throw(s). For the purposes of this tournament, instead of re-rolling, improve the save by 2. If the save improves beyond a 2+, consult the chart below.

Code:
1+        If a "1" is rolled, re-roll and save on a 6+.
0+        If a "1" is rolled, re-roll and save on a 5+.


This would make the rule linear instead of exponential. It would still improve 5+ saves to 3+ saves, which is good, but 2+ would be a 2+/5+ which is exactly the same as Draigowing used to be with feel no pain and that was completely managable with weight of fire.

Edit: I'm gonna blog this I think.

_________________
Image


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What do you think of Drastic Rules changes?
PostPosted: Fri Mar 14, 2014 8:36 am 
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 19, 2013 12:34 pm
Posts: 338
DarkLink wrote:

Unless you're saying that you want to be able to arbitrarily combine random units from different codices together like some power ranger mecha suit. In which case, again, I have no shits to give.

Yes, that is exactly why I want BB to stay the way they are. I want to build crazy powerful fun units. And I dont think anyone should tell me no.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What do you think of Drastic Rules changes?
PostPosted: Fri Mar 14, 2014 9:46 am 
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 10:16 pm
Posts: 709
Then you don't get to complain about basically any of the OP stuff in the game. Don't know if you have or not, but I digress.

_________________
Draigo will **** you up!


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What do you think of Drastic Rules changes?
PostPosted: Fri Mar 14, 2014 10:18 am 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 1:25 pm
Posts: 99
I agree that reducing BB's to AOC is incredibly drastic and doesn't actually fix a whole lot!

Yes, it nerfs the Seerstar (now they'll just have to rely on a 2+ re-rollable armor save instead), it doesn't touch the Screamer Star, nor does it prevent buffmanders from joining riptides... so we screw over plenty of people who weren't playing OP lists for the sake of kinda nerfing one? That's an awful solution which negatively affects far more armies which are not problematic than the ones which are. Kinda like banning all super heavies because of your problem with a couple of them. :)

There should be no problem with an Inquisitor joining a unit of imperial guard (who is going to tell an Inquisitor, "NO!" to his face?), similarly, why would a character from one chapter of space marines be unable to join an allied chapter, doubly so if it's a predecessor of their own chapter? That's all great, fluffy stuff that we can represent on the battlefield.

Don't use a chainsaw to fix problems that require a scalpel. Would it be so bad to outright ban re-rolling a 2+ save? The daemon star has to stack to get the 2+ anyhow, and it would allow Eldar to choose between going for a 2+ or a 3+ re-rollable armor save (either by casting fortune or protect), making it a trade off between blocking more small arms, but risk being vulnerable to AP3, or stopping AP3 shots but being slightly more vulnerable to mass fire, and hell, if they go for the 3+ cover save they can stop AP2 or AP3, but are at risk to ignores cover attacks. Those are all decisions which could be carefully considered if you just banned 2+ re-rollable saves.

The thing is that right now a 2+ re-rollable save is always a choice, nothing naturally comes that way, and they all rely doing things the player chooses to stack. This wouldn't inherently nerf the nature of any unit, but instead would just take away the crazy stacking of rules that happens.

All that said, I'm all for just allowing Destroyer weapons and keeping the crazy saves, I'd rather include more options than cut some out... Though probably restrict Turbo-Laser Warhounds, Pulsar Revenants and Wave of Withering on Transcendent C'tan (again, scalpel, not a chainsaw), though that's more for fun value than anything.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What do you think of Drastic Rules changes?
PostPosted: Fri Mar 14, 2014 10:53 am 
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 10:16 pm
Posts: 709
Quote:
I agree that reducing BB's to AOC is incredibly drastic and doesn't actually fix a whole lot!


Are you guys looking at the same rules for AOC that I am? You're acting like they're terrible, when they're really not. Like, at all. As for fixing stuff, I seem to recall you spending a lot of time bitching about all sorts of broken things that wouldn't be legal without BB while you were promoting

Quote:
Yes, it nerfs the Seerstar (now they'll just have to rely on a 2+ re-roll


Buffmander with riptide is a crappy FAQ decision.

Quote:
so we screw over plenty of people who weren't playing OP lists for the sake of kinda nerfing one?


You haven't read -any- of my posts on this, have you.

Quote:
it doesn't touch the Screamer Star,


The Screamerstar also isn't all that good. It's a noob-stomper list. It's the Seer Council that's nasty. Most take all comers lists can beat the Screamerstar by playing smart. Tie them up in combat, kill their scoring units, play to the mission, etc. It's the Seer Council that's nasty, since you can't tie it up in combat and it has better supporting units like Jetbikes. More importantly, I'm not saying BB would stop the 2++, though. I'm saying there are other possible balance issues in the game caused by BB.


Quote:
Kinda like banning all super heavies because of your problem with a couple of them. :)


I also don't remember ever saying that we should disallowed superheavies. In fact, I've repeatedly said that I'm fine with having superheavies in the game. I have literally only ever said that Str D specifically is broken and needs to be nerfed or banned. And I don't mean literally as in figuratively like a lot of people use it, I mean literally as in literally.

Quote:
There should be no problem with an Inquisitor joining a unit of imperial guard (who is going to tell an Inquisitor, "NO!" to his face?), similarly, why would a character from one chapter of space marines be unable to join an allied chapter, doubly so if it's a predecessor of their own chapter? That's all great, fluffy stuff that we can represent on the battlefield.


I actually mentioned this earlier as an exception, since the codex was pretty much specifically designed as an additional HQ unit for certain codices. But you can't argue with the fact that the BB chart is far more relaxed than it should be, plus, even within the Imperium, half the factions absolutely despise each other and simply do not get along well. They'll fight on the same field, but I find any claims that a Chapter Master has decided to abandon his Chapter and hang out with a bunch of random aliens for kicks laughable.

Quote:
Don't use a chainsaw to fix problems that require a scalpel. Would it be so bad to outright ban re-rolling a 2+ save? The daemon star has to stack to get the 2+ anyhow, and it would allow Eldar to choose between going for a 2+ or a 3+ re-rollable armor save (either by casting fortune or protect), making it a trade off between blocking more small arms, but risk being vulnerable to AP3, or stopping AP3 shots but being slightly more vulnerable to mass fire, and hell, if they go for the 3+ cover save they can stop AP2 or AP3, but are at risk to ignores cover attacks. Those are all decisions which could be carefully considered if you just banned 2+ re-rollable saves.


That's... actually pretty much exactly what I was saying earlier. Well, I said nerf the reroll down to a 5+, but that makes it equivalent to a rerollable 3+ so same difference. I even had a metaphor about a building in danger of falling down and everything.

Quote:
The thing is that right now a 2+ re-rollable save is always a choice, nothing naturally comes that way, and they all rely doing things the player chooses to stack. This wouldn't inherently nerf the nature of any unit, but instead would just take away the crazy stacking of rules that happens.


I've heard some Daemons players argue that because Fateweaver gets a 2+ with the Grimnoire automatically, that GW "intended" it to happen. But I don't buy that any more than I suspect you do.

Quote:
All that said, I'm all for just allowing Destroyer weapons and keeping the crazy saves, I'd rather include more options than cut some out...


Paradox of choice. The more options there are, the more people will focus strictly only on what floats to the top. It's hard to mow a lawn with a scalpel.

_________________
Draigo will **** you up!


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What do you think of Drastic Rules changes?
PostPosted: Fri Mar 14, 2014 11:20 am 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 12:02 pm
Posts: 437
I have to back DarkLink on this. The BB combos are ripe for abuse and bring out many of the overpowered combos or super deathstars we see. Yesterday I played against a Taudar army. The Eldar HQ was joined with the Tau unit and the Tau HQ was joined with the Eldar unit. Why? Not for fluff or aesthetics or any other reason other than because it created the most min/maxed effect.

AoC still allows you to mix and match the armies you want, but you just can't super tool specific units. You can still make the army, you just can't make the combo.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What do you think of Drastic Rules changes?
PostPosted: Fri Mar 14, 2014 11:48 am 
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 19, 2013 12:34 pm
Posts: 338
DarkLink wrote:
Then you don't get to complain about basically any of the OP stuff in the game. Don't know if you have or not, but I digress.

I never do.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What do you think of Drastic Rules changes?
PostPosted: Fri Mar 14, 2014 11:51 am 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 1:25 pm
Posts: 99
DarkLink wrote:
Are you guys looking at the same rules for AOC that I am? You're acting like they're terrible, when they're really not. Like, at all. As for fixing stuff, I seem to recall you spending a lot of time bitching about all sorts of broken things that wouldn't be legal without BB while you were promoting


Like I also said, I think that while you may fix a couple of the problems, you would end up hurting a lot of other things which were working just fine.

DarkLink wrote:
Buffmander with riptide is a crappy FAQ decision.


What FAQ? GW hasn't FAQ'd that at all.

DarkLink wrote:
You haven't read -any- of my posts on this, have you.


First of all If I took the time to read all your posts, I wouldn't have time to get anything else done. Second of all, why do you take such a defensive stance if I reiterate a point that you made? Chill out.

DarkLink wrote:
The Screamerstar also isn't all that good. It's a noob-stomper list. It's the Seer Council that's nasty. Most take all comers lists can beat the Screamerstar by playing smart. Tie them up in combat, kill their scoring units, play to the mission, etc. It's the Seer Council that's nasty, since you can't tie it up in combat and it has better supporting units like Jetbikes. More importantly, I'm not saying BB would stop the 2++, though. I'm saying there are other possible balance issues in the game caused by BB.


Yes, the screamer star is actually pretty damn good, it's just not when you compare it to the newer seer star. Screamer Star was doing just fine before, though you are correct that the seer star is much better because of it's voltron capabilities.

DarkLink wrote:
I also don't remember ever saying that we should disallowed superheavies. In fact, I've repeatedly said that I'm fine with having superheavies in the game. I have literally only ever said that Str D specifically is broken and needs to be nerfed or banned. And I don't mean literally as in figuratively like a lot of people use it, I mean literally as in literally.


You're very conceded if you think that every post I make is a direct reference to you. I suggest you listen to these lyrics: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6UAYGxiRwU

DarkLink wrote:
I actually mentioned this earlier as an exception, since the codex was pretty much specifically designed as an additional HQ unit for certain codices. But you can't argue with the fact that the BB chart is far more relaxed than it should be, plus, even within the Imperium, half the factions absolutely despise each other and simply do not get along well. They'll fight on the same field, but I find any claims that a Chapter Master has decided to abandon his Chapter and hang out with a bunch of random aliens for kicks laughable.


Idk, with the fluff that Mat Ward writes, anything is possible, haha.

DarkLink wrote:
That's... actually pretty much exactly what I was saying earlier. Well, I said nerf the reroll down to a 5+, but that makes it equivalent to a rerollable 3+ so same difference. I even had a metaphor about a building in danger of falling down and everything.


Again, why do you assume that you need to be defensive over a stance that I agree with? My point of not allowing the 2++ itself to be re-rolled at all though was to create a bit of variety in the choices that would be made by the player casting the spells and buffs.

DarkLink wrote:
I've heard some Daemons players argue that because Fateweaver gets a 2+ with the Grimnoire automatically, that GW "intended" it to happen. But I don't buy that any more than I suspect you do.


Yeah, we're definitely in agreement there.

DarkLink wrote:
Paradox of choice. The more options there are, the more people will focus strictly only on what floats to the top. It's hard to mow a lawn with a scalpel.


The idea is to make nothing float to the top, or everything. As much as people say they don't like Rock-Paper-Scissors, they're all equally good in the context of their game, Scissors will claim that Rock is OP, but in the end, no choice is better than another.

Oh boy, more bad metaphors... You don't mow your lawn with a chainsaw either... You mow your lawn when the whole yard needs a trim, not just because you have a couple weeds... The point in my analogy is that there are a couple small instances of problematic units, not an overarching problem with every single army in the game. You shouldn't be putting in rules that negatively affect armies or allies which aren't problematic just because it also fixes the one very small situation that is.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What do you think of Drastic Rules changes?
PostPosted: Sat Mar 15, 2014 12:43 am 
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 10:16 pm
Posts: 709
So just a thought, what if we limited all reroll saves to one specific type of save, of the player's choice. So the Seer Council could choose to reroll either their invuln, or their armor, or cover, but not all three. Still keep the 2/4+ nerf, since the Screamerstar only has invulns, but just a though to throw out there.

_________________
Draigo will **** you up!


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What do you think of Drastic Rules changes?
PostPosted: Thu Mar 20, 2014 11:00 am 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 1:21 pm
Posts: 1986
Location: Martinez, CA
Again though, I think a lot of the BB combos are fun and totally fair. It is only a few, key unit interactions that really cause trouble.

Buffmander.
The Baron.
Coteaz.
To a lesser degree: Farseers.

Honestly, limit those key units and you eliminate 99% of the truly problematic rules issues.

_________________
"I am da law!"

No really, on these forums I am the law. Moderators, hooooooo!


Top
Offline Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What do you think of Drastic Rules changes?
PostPosted: Mon Nov 23, 2020 11:18 pm 

Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2020 11:10 pm
Posts: 1
The game makers have problems while designing or during coding. So solutions to their problems are discussed their and provides ease to their users or clients and students can get college assignment help to finish their tasks. The discussions done between people so to resolve the issues.


Top
Offline Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 60 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 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

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
Theme created StylerBB.net