Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 305 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 21  Next

[EXPERIMENTAL] Lost and the damned redux v0.2

 Post subject: Re: [EXPERIMENTAL] Lost and the damned redux v0.1
PostPosted: Sun Dec 08, 2013 2:55 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2011 1:32 pm
Posts: 695
Location: Geneva, Swizerland
dptdexys wrote:
LordotMilk wrote:

Concerning Questor strength, I don't think I need to insist more, as I have already stated my case (coming from experience mind you). Obviously 8 shots x2 cannot kill 30 units. But multiple Questors have multiple times that firepower.


With your concerns about the firepower of Questors why do you suggest giving each one 2 extra shots at 50 points cheaper cost. I know your recommending dropping shields and weapon range but with the speed of the Titan range won't be a problem, shields will.


Battlecannons provide the ability to stretch the range of the castigator cannons. We play Questors here by placing them at 42-45 cm to the target and using the stretched range to kill multiple units of the enemy formation. Then the enemy cannot fire back because most of its guns have a 45 cm range and its units at that range are all dead. If they are not, even better, as there are probably only very few alive and the Questor sustains for awful damage on the next turn.

_________________
"War is not about who is right, but about who is left". - B. Russell


Last edited by LordotMilk on Sun Dec 08, 2013 3:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: [EXPERIMENTAL] Lost and the damned redux v0.1
PostPosted: Sun Dec 08, 2013 3:06 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2011 1:32 pm
Posts: 695
Location: Geneva, Swizerland
MikeT wrote:
LordotMilk wrote:
Concerning Questor strength, I don't think I need to insist more, as I have already stated my case (coming from experience mind you). Obviously 8 shots x2 cannot kill 30 units. But multiple Questors have multiple times that firepower.


Finally, I don't see why you would state that my posts are not substantiated by experience. At best, your experience is different.


As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I am glad someone is tackling this list. I am just hoping that something a bit more flavourful than just a rinced down list comes out of of the process.


I'm going to reply to LoM again, but am concious this risks being perceived as turning into some kind of group hazing. It's not.

Yes, you really do need to insist more; you haven't provided any concrete experiences to back up your concerns and the analysis (kill a huge mob) is provably false. this is in no way the level of evidence we should be working to. If you have concrete examples, present them here with as much ancillary evidence as possible (full batreps are really needed to judge a formations potential effects) rather than vague assertions.

Regarding the Daemon formations; I really like that idea but I worry what it would do to this list. At the very least, the Daemon Engine formations would once again have to be limited to one per core formation which seems silly as the stated goal of the list is to allow for more use for said formations.


What I highlighted as a problem was the omnipresence of a certain playgroup in NetEA development, with any other playgroup's opinion discarded for one reason or another. This is not what I call open development. Also, this one playgroup already has its own lists and has had a systemic approach of only supporting Net EA development which is compatible with those lists or, even worse, stating as a good thing (for who?) that the lists would be the same.. Finally, though those lists present some advantages (streamlining mostly), those advantanges are only relevant in a tournament environment. In a non-tournament environment, more colourful and diverse lists are preferable. I don't know about you, but I play 90% of my games out of tournaments.

Now concerning daemon engine formations being limited to one or 2, I am certain that if they would be reviewed for balance and/or redesigned, you would have no problem in leaving two per and allowing for daemon hordes.

Concerning the Slaanesh Titans, my issues are stated above are firstly concerned with the bad design they suffer from ab initio fluffwise and battlefield role wise. My issue with balance and questors is mostly related to the new ability of Fielding multiple single one in your current list. I am certain that your own playtesting will highlight this as a problem.

_________________
"War is not about who is right, but about who is left". - B. Russell


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: [EXPERIMENTAL] Lost and the damned redux v0.1
PostPosted: Sun Dec 08, 2013 3:14 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2011 12:03 pm
Posts: 6296
Location: Leicester UK
But if you kill every unit within 45cm, then next turn when you sustain, only the battlecannons are in range.....

_________________
NetEA Space Marine, Imperial Fists and Blood Angels Army Champion

NetEA Red Corsairs Army Champion

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: [EXPERIMENTAL] Lost and the damned redux v0.1
PostPosted: Sun Dec 08, 2013 3:43 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 11:39 pm
Posts: 1960
Location: South Yorkshire
LordotMilk wrote:
dptdexys wrote:
LordotMilk wrote:

Concerning Questor strength, I don't think I need to insist more, as I have already stated my case (coming from experience mind you). Obviously 8 shots x2 cannot kill 30 units. But multiple Questors have multiple times that firepower.


With your concerns about the firepower of Questors why do you suggest giving each one 2 extra shots at 50 points cheaper cost. I know your recommending dropping shields and weapon range but with the speed of the Titan range won't be a problem, shields will.


Battlecannons provide the ability to stretch the range of the castigator cannons. We play Questors here by placing them at 42-45 cm to the target and using the stretched range to kill multiple units of the enemy formation. Then the enemy cannot fire back because most of its guns have a 45 cm range and its units at that range are all dead. If they are not, even better, as there are probably only very few alive and the Questor sustains for awful damage.



Yeah I get that, that's standard play everywhere and lots of formations in lots of lists can do that sort of thing. Haven't your group learnt to use the depth of terrain features to hide troops and therefore force the Questor to have to go into more dangerous positions if it wants to sustain fire or be effective in the game.

What I don't get is the up gunning and points reduction of a unit that you claim is overpowered and kills lots of stuff easily.Therefore getting within 30cm to do an even better job isn't going to be a problem for it as with the suppression rules there still won't be much firepower coming back from that formation.

Also over the last couple of years I've rarely taken a Questor, if ever, as my opponents (both at home games and tournaments) have learnt how to deal with them before they do too much damage. I'm quite happy to test them with extra attacks and cheaper but I'm not sure opponents would be too happy with that, I'll try and surprise someone with them and see how they go.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: [EXPERIMENTAL] Lost and the damned redux v0.1
PostPosted: Sun Dec 08, 2013 4:26 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2011 12:03 pm
Posts: 6296
Location: Leicester UK
LordotMilk wrote:

What I highlighted as a problem was the omnipresence of a certain playgroup in NetEA development, with any other playgroup's opinion discarded for one reason or another. This is not what I call open development. Also, this one playgroup already has its own lists and has had a systemic approach of only supporting Net EA development which is compatible with those lists or, even worse, stating as a good thing (for who?) that the lists would be the same.. Finally, though those lists present some advantages (streamlining mostly), those advantanges are only relevant in a tournament environment. In a non-tournament environment, more colourful and diverse lists are preferable. I don't know about you, but I play 90% of my games out of tournaments.


are you serious? this is complete rubbish, bad ideas are dismissed out of hand, regardless of their source, and they are usually dismissed with a description of why they're bad ideas.... to say that the EUK guys dismiss 'any other playgroup's opinion' is disingenous and completely untrue..... nobody at EUK has said that the lists should be the same.... can you give an example of this? link to a thread where it was said maybe?

_________________
NetEA Space Marine, Imperial Fists and Blood Angels Army Champion

NetEA Red Corsairs Army Champion

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: [EXPERIMENTAL] Lost and the damned redux v0.1
PostPosted: Sun Dec 08, 2013 5:50 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 11:39 pm
Posts: 1960
Location: South Yorkshire
LordotMilk wrote:
Finally, though those lists present some advantages (streamlining mostly), those advantanges are only relevant in a tournament environment. In a non-tournament environment, more colourful and diverse lists are preferable. I don't know about you, but I play 90% of my games out of tournaments.


I'm sorry but all lists are supposed to be designed for tournament use and if players want to use those lists for out of tournament games then they can use common sense and adjust how they see fit for more colourful or diverse armies.

The rule book states this clearly.

Lists are for tournaments and pick up games between players who don't usually play each other, gamers who play each other regularly should be capable of adjusting any list for their needs.

Again, it is stated in the rule book, if there is anything you want to change for your games (rules wise, stats wise, unit wise or list wise) you can. It's your game you don't need permission to adjust to taste.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: [EXPERIMENTAL] Lost and the damned redux v0.1
PostPosted: Sun Dec 08, 2013 6:14 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2011 1:32 pm
Posts: 695
Location: Geneva, Swizerland
kyussinchains wrote:
are you serious? this is complete rubbish, bad ideas are dismissed out of hand, regardless of their source, and they are usually dismissed with a description of why they're bad ideas.... to say that the EUK guys dismiss 'any other playgroup's opinion' is disingenous and completely untrue..... nobody at EUK has said that the lists should be the same.... can you give an example of this? link to a thread where it was said maybe?


kyussinchains wrote:
I bring up the EUK list as it's the same freaking list Steve is one of the main co-ordinators for EUK and is very keen on synergising the two, ergo as it's been out in the EUK scene for a while, it's recieved plenty of playtesting, I assumed you knew this, and apologise if you weren't aware


Your words. This thread viewtopic.php?f=82&t=25760&start=15

_________________
"War is not about who is right, but about who is left". - B. Russell


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: [EXPERIMENTAL] Lost and the damned redux v0.1
PostPosted: Sun Dec 08, 2013 6:20 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2011 1:32 pm
Posts: 695
Location: Geneva, Swizerland
dptdexys wrote:
LordotMilk wrote:
Finally, though those lists present some advantages (streamlining mostly), those advantanges are only relevant in a tournament environment. In a non-tournament environment, more colourful and diverse lists are preferable. I don't know about you, but I play 90% of my games out of tournaments.


I'm sorry but all lists are supposed to be designed for tournament use and if players want to use those lists for out of tournament games then they can use common sense and adjust how they see fit for more colourful or diverse armies.

The rule book states this clearly.

Lists are for tournaments and pick up games between players who don't usually play each other, gamers who play each other regularly should be capable of adjusting any list for their needs.

Again, it is stated in the rule book, if there is anything you want to change for your games (rules wise, stats wise, unit wise or list wise) you can. It's your game you don't need permission to adjust to taste.


Better for a tournament environment does not mean that more colourful lists are bad for tournaments.

No one will argue that Chess isn't easier to manage for tournaments than Magic:the Gathering, for example.

A good example of my point is the treatment DKoK (which you seem to have fondness for) received. I like Centaurs and Trojans, and I do not think they are unbalanced in the NetEA list. EUk streamlined these units into one. That's fine balance wise, makes it easier to manage. I would not support it as a change on the NetEA list.

Note that I'd rather we didnt discuss EUK lists here. My point was that I wish that if NetEA redesigns LatD (or an offshoot) then we tackle the matter in a straightforward and open manner, and we don't limit ourselves to a simple rince and streamlining of the existing list, which I had pointed out as being a typical EUk process (note that this is stated principle of EUk development, as written in the design notes of your codexes).

_________________
"War is not about who is right, but about who is left". - B. Russell


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: [EXPERIMENTAL] Lost and the damned redux v0.1
PostPosted: Sun Dec 08, 2013 6:26 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2011 12:03 pm
Posts: 6296
Location: Leicester UK
LordotMilk wrote:
kyussinchains wrote:
are you serious? this is complete rubbish, bad ideas are dismissed out of hand, regardless of their source, and they are usually dismissed with a description of why they're bad ideas.... to say that the EUK guys dismiss 'any other playgroup's opinion' is disingenous and completely untrue..... nobody at EUK has said that the lists should be the same.... can you give an example of this? link to a thread where it was said maybe?


kyussinchains wrote:
I bring up the EUK list as it's the same freaking list Steve is one of the main co-ordinators for EUK and is very keen on synergising the two, ergo as it's been out in the EUK scene for a while, it's recieved plenty of playtesting, I assumed you knew this, and apologise if you weren't aware


Your words. This thread viewtopic.php?f=82&t=25760&start=15


I merely play epic at EUK events, I'm not a developer or affiliated in any way....

My pointing out that two lists happen to be the same is hardly a ringing endorsement or statement of intent

_________________
NetEA Space Marine, Imperial Fists and Blood Angels Army Champion

NetEA Red Corsairs Army Champion

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: [EXPERIMENTAL] Lost and the damned redux v0.1
PostPosted: Sun Dec 08, 2013 6:40 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2011 1:32 pm
Posts: 695
Location: Geneva, Swizerland
dptdexys wrote:
LordotMilk wrote:
dptdexys wrote:
LordotMilk wrote:

Concerning Questor strength, I don't think I need to insist more, as I have already stated my case (coming from experience mind you). Obviously 8 shots x2 cannot kill 30 units. But multiple Questors have multiple times that firepower.


With your concerns about the firepower of Questors why do you suggest giving each one 2 extra shots at 50 points cheaper cost. I know your recommending dropping shields and weapon range but with the speed of the Titan range won't be a problem, shields will.


Battlecannons provide the ability to stretch the range of the castigator cannons. We play Questors here by placing them at 42-45 cm to the target and using the stretched range to kill multiple units of the enemy formation. Then the enemy cannot fire back because most of its guns have a 45 cm range and its units at that range are all dead. If they are not, even better, as there are probably only very few alive and the Questor sustains for awful damage.



Yeah I get that, that's standard play everywhere and lots of formations in lots of lists can do that sort of thing. Haven't your group learnt to use the depth of terrain features to hide troops and therefore force the Questor to have to go into more dangerous positions if it wants to sustain fire or be effective in the game.

What I don't get is the up gunning and points reduction of a unit that you claim is overpowered and kills lots of stuff easily.Therefore getting within 30cm to do an even better job isn't going to be a problem for it as with the suppression rules there still won't be much firepower coming back from that formation.

Also over the last couple of years I've rarely taken a Questor, if ever, as my opponents (both at home games and tournaments) have learnt how to deal with them before they do too much damage. I'm quite happy to test them with extra attacks and cheaper but I'm not sure opponents would be too happy with that, I'll try and surprise someone with them and see how they go.


I am not arguing that my proposed stats are the best solution. Only that they are an alternative solution, which might be in part or in whole preferable. My wish is that the daemon engine stats are reviewed, and that we dont satisfy ourselves with "it's been like that for 10 years, lets leave it like that", when we are precisely not doing that with LatD. Also, I am certain your great experience has shown that simple tweaks to some daemon engines would increase/balance their playability than their current stats.

Questors should not have 75 cm Battlecannons, for they are are close fire support units (Scout titans, not artillery titans). It's a bit ike giving Paladin Knights a 75 cm battlecannon, when that goes against their fluff history and battlefield role. On top of the fluff argument, the superior shooting ability of the castigator cannons is greatly enhanced (and I am arguing unbalanced) by the stretching ability of theose battlecannons.

Thank you for the proposed trial, in any case.

_________________
"War is not about who is right, but about who is left". - B. Russell


Last edited by LordotMilk on Sun Dec 08, 2013 6:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: [EXPERIMENTAL] Lost and the damned redux v0.1
PostPosted: Sun Dec 08, 2013 6:45 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid

Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2005 8:35 am
Posts: 4274
I don't understand how you think the best way to have an open debate is to
- attack others in the thread and allege some conspiracy
- criticise other peoples projects
- bring up situations and results which are at best nonsensical
- ignore everybody elses experience against yours

I've come to the conclusion you're mainly trolling

_________________
www.epic-uk.co.uk
NetEA NetERC Human Lists Chair
NetEA Chaos + Black Legion Champion


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: [EXPERIMENTAL] Lost and the damned redux v0.1
PostPosted: Sun Dec 08, 2013 6:47 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2011 1:32 pm
Posts: 695
Location: Geneva, Swizerland
Steve54 wrote:
I don't understand how you think the best way to have an open debate is to
- attack others in the thread and allege some conspiracy
- criticise other peoples projects
- bring up situations and results which are at best nonsensical
- ignore everybody elses experience against yours

I've come to the conclusion you're mainly trolling


Thanks for your enlightened opinion.

Someone disagrees with you and he's relegated to being a troll.

Some room for open debate (!)

Edit: I have not attacked you, you have however attacked me several times, even by direct insult. This forum is a development forum, therefore it is the role of the members to criticise other people's projects. I bring situations which make perfect sense, at least as much as your example of 3 unit formations not being viable, do not derail the debate here. I am not ignoring your experience. I am asking for you to consider other expériences, and not simply restating ad nauseam how your experience is the only one relevant.

As for rudeness, coming from you that is quite a statement.

_________________
"War is not about who is right, but about who is left". - B. Russell


Last edited by LordotMilk on Sun Dec 08, 2013 7:16 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: [EXPERIMENTAL] Lost and the damned redux v0.1
PostPosted: Sun Dec 08, 2013 6:53 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid

Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2005 8:35 am
Posts: 4274
No just when he is deliberately rude and makes trolling statements irrelevant to the thread.

I've commented on your ideas though you haven't replied just made more EUK insinuations.

Your main questor example does not work number wise, how would 2 questors sustain over 2 turns with no interference from the opponent and everything still being in range? Even if it has ever happened how is 550 ptz doing exactly whatvit is best at for 2 turns a problem?

_________________
www.epic-uk.co.uk
NetEA NetERC Human Lists Chair
NetEA Chaos + Black Legion Champion


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: [EXPERIMENTAL] Lost and the damned redux v0.1
PostPosted: Sun Dec 08, 2013 7:01 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 11:39 pm
Posts: 1960
Location: South Yorkshire
LordotMilk wrote:
Steve54 wrote:
I don't understand how you think the best way to have an open debate is to
- attack others in the thread and allege some conspiracy
- criticise other peoples projects
- bring up situations and results which are at best nonsensical
- ignore everybody elses experience against yours

I've come to the conclusion you're mainly trolling


Thanks for your enlightened opinion.

Someone disagrees with you and he's relegated to being a troll.

Some room for open debate (!)



WHOAH, this coming from someone who when anyone disagrees with you in a thread throws out insults and insinuations then thinks posting no offence was meant makes it OK.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: [EXPERIMENTAL] Lost and the damned redux v0.1
PostPosted: Sun Dec 08, 2013 7:06 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2011 1:32 pm
Posts: 695
Location: Geneva, Swizerland
1 Questor advancing is 6 shots at 4+ vs. in cover infantry = 3 hits, and 2 shots at 5+ = 2/3 of a hit.

1 Questor sustaining on the same target is 5 hits (simple math).

That's a total of 8 hits and 2/3.

Diverse targets (in a 5+ cover):

SM Tactical:
- 4 and 1/3 dead = broken

Big Ork warband (grots preserved for assault):

- 6-7 dead close to broken and no retaliation ability. If the grots were lost, the formation is useless for assaults, and any questor assaulting will win the assault. On a good Questor roll, the orks are broken.

IG infantry company:

- 6 dead = broken

etc.

6-8 times that in an army I am arguing is too strong. I am however certain that your Superior tactical ability and inexhaustible wisdom will come to the same conclusion once you have playtested the list. Without going into great changes, if the current stance on "lets not review the stats for daemon engines, because (insert personal perference)", then at least force the choice of using 2 questors minimum so as to reduce activation count (nothing supernatural here).

@dptdexys: I have never insulted you or anyone. I have, however, been directly insulted by Steve.

_________________
"War is not about who is right, but about who is left". - B. Russell


Last edited by LordotMilk on Sun Dec 08, 2013 7:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 305 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 21  Next


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