Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 35 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

New War Engine Rules - For Playtest, Feedback

 Post subject: Re: New War Engine Rules - For Playtest, Feedback
PostPosted: Mon Nov 02, 2015 9:08 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2015 4:36 am
Posts: 112
Location: Washington State, USA.
Yeah, I know they were a dead list. I've followed along but been silent about the whole epic journey since they introduced Epic 40k after SM/TL. I knew they got rid of the Squats but I also know there was still an interest in them and I thought that interest would have carried over to NetEA from the beginning. If I remember correctly, it did, but since GW didn't want to hear anything about Squats they silenced anything about them on the Specialist site.

But I've read about people continuing to try to keep the Squats alive in the various editions of the game for years so I figured they would have at least been able to come up with a workable Squat list for this game in that amount of time. Apparently I was wrong.

And this state of affairs is not acceptable to me. But since I am not familiar enough with the Epic Armageddon rules set to figure out all the nuances of what each and every little thing does and has the potential to do if changed, I have had to sit back and be silent again. If I knew everything about the game I would be way more pro active about getting this list approved.

Right now I am not good enough at the game to even do battle reports and submit them. When I get to that point you will see me becoming a super Squat activist. ;D

_________________
Resident Squat Army Fanatic


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: New War Engine Rules - For Playtest, Feedback
PostPosted: Mon Nov 02, 2015 10:08 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid

Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2014 2:54 pm
Posts: 306
Roadkill Zombie wrote:

Seriously? Wow, that's just...I don't even know what to say. I had figured there were enough people interested in playing Squats that the list would have been submitted at least once. I mean how long has NetEA been in existence? And in all that time not one Squat list has made the grade?....I'm shocked to say the least.


Roadkill, lists aren't randomly invented on the fly by a various fan and submitted in the hopes that they get approved - there is a reasonably set out procedure that can take some time.

Inventing a list is surprisingly easy to do. Playtesting and balancing the final product is surprisingly hard. A lot of lists get most of the way there before stagnating.

Each army has an Army Commander, or AC. It's there job to drive the development of the list with lots of feedback from the fans and the sub AC's. If you scroll back through the forum list, you will see the many iterations put out be Moscovian over the years, 1.3...1.4...1.5. At each iteration problems have been identified and changes made.

It takes a fair while to playtest a list. Different playgroups have different play styles and metas. What looks like a balanced list to one group can be a completely different beast in another one.

Only when the AC is happy with the final list do they submit it for approval. Basically a list is usually pretty damned polished before it goes to the head chairs.


Epic Armageddon is kind of having a surge in popularity at the moment. Some might point to the fact that now that GW has discontinued support, it has allowed a lot of proxy suppliers to start making proxy models. But some can also point to the the fact that it is a very balanced and tactical game, which has only occurred through the slow and tedious playtesting process that EA has.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: New War Engine Rules - For Playtest, Feedback
PostPosted: Tue Nov 03, 2015 12:59 am 
Hybrid
Hybrid

Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2014 2:54 pm
Posts: 306
Onyx wrote:
Lol, ok.

You had best make sure that this list is properly play tested and that the amazing combinations are seen in the majority of the battle reports. This was a serious problem with the AMTL list and l can see it happening again. You seem to be missing the actual game impact of these super barrages. It's not just 1 formation that will be you target. In most cases you will be able to hit multiple formations with 1 barrage. I have seen this dozens of times and I'm not theoryhammering.

Just because you (as the list designer) wouldn't take the most effective builds, doesn't mean other players will be as generous.

The approval process is not just about playing 18 games with a list and then approval happens.

Oh and you forgot the amazing mole mortars in your comparison with the Iron Warriors. Artillery that can hit the entire board with disrupt barrage definetly classes as long range. I would take mole mortars over basilisks every time. Battle cannons also class as long range and there are plenty of those in the squat list. Of course there is the missiles as well.


Agreed. This Land Train has been flagged as one of the things that need to be 'play tested to the limit' with as much attempting to break the army list as possible.

The current list looks like
1) Leviathans carrying great FF troops like robots and trikes
2) Land Train maxed out in each of the four cart combos
3) Twin small land train.

In my notes they are marked in Orange as "dangerous, please check"


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: New War Engine Rules - For Playtest, Feedback
PostPosted: Tue Nov 03, 2015 8:42 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2014 8:01 pm
Posts: 1208
Onyx, I know you keep insisting on the mole mortars but between maybe a dozen players I've spoken to, played with ou against (including UK tournament winners and champions) I've never found them out anyone else who had such a problem with them. A
Plenty of armies have far better disrupt artillery (steel legion, death guard, biel Tann, etc) along with loads of other amazing stuff. Maybe you have an opponent who uses them in a way no one had thought of, in which case some battle reports would probably help hugely as opposed to the current theoretical debate. I've got one old report up from when my opponent used more mortars. I think I still won.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: New War Engine Rules - For Playtest, Feedback
PostPosted: Mon Feb 01, 2016 10:48 am 
Hybrid
Hybrid

Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2014 2:54 pm
Posts: 306
So after a few months playtesting on the new war engines this is my current feel:

The Dragon car is a bit overpowered (as we all knew it would). I am considering dropping one of the FF MW and changing the stats to match the Cyclops' cruicible cannon.

So it becomes:
2 x AP3+/AT5+ IC
+1 FF, MW
75pts.

It neatens up the list a bit and also makes it less of a infantry killer.

I'm pretty happy with the 90cm 3+ TK(D3) Slow Firing Bomb car

I'm still not 100% satisfied with the Siege car yet. The jump from 3PB to 4PB is such a huge thing that I might have to do something with the points value. The EpicUK list is allowing it so...


Has anyone had any playtesting done with the leviathan packed with shooting troops?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 35 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


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 ® Forum Software © phpBB Group
CoDFaction Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net