It is currently Mon May 20, 2019 4:01 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 23 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
  Print view Previous topic | Next topic 
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Feb 17, 2014 8:22 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2013 8:53 am
Posts: 269
Hi there,

we played a game of 1000pts each, Bauhaus vs. Dark Legion yesterday. And while the game proved that luck still is the one dominating factor (first, I missed several Armor Test, leading to the demise of several models, then, when I thought, all was lost, a lone Necrobeast Rider shot (!) a very healthy Max Steiner with only 2 shots (1 being a headshot)), we found that rapid deployment is a tad too deadly. And this is why:

Situation 1:
Etoiles Mortant landed right where they wanted (they use their regular LD instead of LD/2 to see if they scatter), that is directly in close combat with Alakhai. And while Alakhai is really a beast when attacking himself, he was shreddered to pieces by the troup of Etoiles. And really, there is nothing you can do about it (except perhaps always placing YOUR own models beside him so that noone can enter the CC). They land, each one has 4 Attacks (when turn to burning some special ability), the almost always hit and at some point, probability is on their side (5 Etoiles, 1 with flame thrower equals 18 hits). This really was a negative play experience (NPE) and very frustrating because, well, as I said: there is nothing you can do about it. (and my 8 Resource cards went with him, the one thing that was really devastating about his demise)

Situation 2:
2 Legion Stalkers with Hindenburg Incinerators, landed in midst of his troops. 1 shot his flamer at the Bauhaus walker, damaging the torso for 2, the other shot his flamer at a troop of Venusian Rangers. That is, not before I played "Eye for an Eye" on them, which gave them an AV of ZERO against flamer attacks. And thus, all Venusian Rangers perished. We forgot that the low Strength of 8 from the Flamer would have led to an increase in AV of +2, but each was getting 2 hits... so they would have died anyway. After that, I played "Arcane Regurgitation", which led to them being redeployed immediately to somewhere else. They couldnt shoot anymore, but they didnt have to. Return fire in the next turn reduced them by 3 wounds (1 model). The other model again destroyed a whole troop of Bauhaus troopers (Eye for an Eye) and with a lucky torso shot, killed the Walker, too.

So while it may seem balanced that we both wreaked havoc with our Rapid Deployment troops, it didnt feel right - for both of us, in both situations. I felt like being a cheater when killing his guys and felt cheated when killed by his guys.

What is your experience about Rapid Deployment?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 17, 2014 9:38 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2013 9:34 am
Posts: 253
Dunnagh wrote:

Situation 2:
2 Legion Stalkers with Hindenburg Incinerators, landed in midst of his troops. 1 shot his flamer at the Bauhaus walker, damaging the torso for 2, the other shot his flamer at a troop of Venusian Rangers. That is, not before I played "Eye for an Eye" on them, which gave them an AV of ZERO against flamer attacks. And thus, all Venusian Rangers perished. We forgot that the low Strength of 8 from the Flamer would have led to an increase in AV of +2, but each was getting 2 hits... so they would have died anyway. After that, I played "Arcane Regurgitation", which led to them being redeployed immediately to somewhere else. They couldnt shoot anymore, but they didnt have to. Return fire in the next turn reduced them by 3 wounds (1 model). The other model again destroyed a whole troop of Bauhaus troopers (Eye for an Eye) and with a lucky torso shot, killed the Walker, too.


You played that one wrong then. As normal models don't have AV, they have A. AV is only for Vehicles.

As far as the other point goes, you have to put the deployment point in open terrain, which means your important models should be somewhat safe as long as they are in some sort of terrain, at least until all rapid deployment troops have been deployed.

EDIT: Also, it costs 1 resource per each Etoiles Mortant to increase RoA to 4, which means your opponent burnt 5 resources to give them that much attacks? They also would not have gotten an engage bonus, which means they were only ST 11 on the attacks? Even 20 attacks with Str 11 is something that Alakhai should statisically survive (although with only one wound remaining). And even after that, the 8 resources you lost came from playing the Advanced Game. This leads me to think that my notion of the Advanced Game being somewhat unbalanced is confirmed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 17, 2014 10:19 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2013 8:53 am
Posts: 269
not really:

Page 7 of the rules state:
Quote:
A – Armour Value. The number required to roll on a D20 for an Armour test to ignore a Wound Effect. Occasionally an Armour Value may include a second number in brackets e.g. A:18(12), this is the Impenetrable Armour Value. Armour cannot be reduced below the Value in brackets.


What you mean is the "Armoured Value"
Quote:
AVV – ‘Anti Vehicle Value’. This value will Modify the Armoured Value (AV) of targets with SP (Structure Points)


Therefore, we did play it right :-)

As to "open terrain" - we do not really have anything other than open terrain - nor does anyone else playing (at least when I look at the photos). A field of rubble seems to qualify as heavy or light terrain - but we do not have rubble. Alakhai was standing next to a wall (which is heavy terrain) - but on his other side it was open :-/

Alakhai already suffered 2 wounds from shooting before that (unlucky armor saves). The first Etoile that landed shot her flamer (Critical Damage) then 2 attacked with 4 attacks. T´was enough.

RULES QUESTION:
Rapid Deployment states:
Quote:
If the Rapid Deployment test is passed, then the Squad successively lands on the Deployment Point; place the Squad Commander on the Deployment Point, then deploy
the rest of the relevant Squad within 3” of the Squad Commander.

Does this mean the whole troop is deployed at ONCE and then every model can still act with 1 AP? We played it the way that you deploy them one by one, using their AP, then landing the next model.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 17, 2014 10:40 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2013 4:46 pm
Posts: 371
Kollar: I agree with you that advanced game after change of number of cards for warlords is unbalanced. Now it plays like warmahordes = kill hero, win game. Also some units/their abilities should be rechecked because they are too powerful for their points/place in force organisation. I would suggest for example that no troop choice should have cc/rs over 15 and no more than 1 wound.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 17, 2014 10:43 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2013 8:53 am
Posts: 269
I agree with that estimation.
Something like this would have been more appropriate:
1000 pts game: 5 base cards, +1 for every squad commander, +2 for every lord, +3 for Warlord

Troop choices really should be basic. I like the Legion Troops because they feel like the backbone. Etoiles Mortants on the other hand seem very specialized. Perhaps they could have had something like "they can be deployed via rapid deployment, but then they count as support". A lot of units (Brotherhood!) could be reworked this way.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 17, 2014 12:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2013 9:34 am
Posts: 253
Dunnagh wrote:
not really:

Page 7 of the rules state:
Quote:
A – Armour Value. The number required to roll on a D20 for an Armour test to ignore a Wound Effect. Occasionally an Armour Value may include a second number in brackets e.g. A:18(12), this is the Impenetrable Armour Value. Armour cannot be reduced below the Value in brackets.


What you mean is the "Armoured Value"
Quote:
AVV – ‘Anti Vehicle Value’. This value will Modify the Armoured Value (AV) of targets with SP (Structure Points)


Therefore, we did play it right :-)


Well, I don't have the card in question. I suppose it's included with the Stalkers? The way you typed it out, the card "gave them an AV of ZERO against flamer attacks". It depends on what abbreviation is being used on the card, as well as if it's targeting the squad being attacked, or the squad attacking. As Vehicles have AV and Infantry have A, if the card reads that it gives a unit an AV of ZERO, I would argue that it only affects Vehicles (as troops don't have AV, only A). Without reading the card, or seeing a picture it's impossible to tell.

Dunnagh wrote:
As to "open terrain" - we do not really have anything other than open terrain - nor does anyone else playing (at least when I look at the photos). A field of rubble seems to qualify as heavy or light terrain - but we do not have rubble. Alakhai was standing next to a wall (which is heavy terrain) - but on his other side it was open :-/

Alakhai already suffered 2 wounds from shooting before that (unlucky armor saves). The first Etoile that landed shot her flamer (Critical Damage) then 2 attacked with 4 attacks. T´was enough.


How is she able to both shoot her flamer and attack in CC? If you are engaged (which she would have had to have been if she could attack afterwards, as it uses a models entire movement value to Rapid Deploy), she can only spend one action, and that has to be a CC attack or a Special CC attack?

As to terrain, we'll count that you are out of "open" terrain as long as you are touching a terrain feature. That means, if you are on the base of a wood, you are not in open terrain, same with a building etc etc. Anything between terrain features counts as open terrain. That's just how we'll play it though, you might have decided something else.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 17, 2014 12:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2013 9:34 am
Posts: 253
Shadow Walker wrote:
Kollar: I agree with you that advanced game after change of number of cards for warlords is unbalanced. Now it plays like warmahordes = kill hero, win game. Also some units/their abilities should be rechecked because they are too powerful for their points/place in force organisation. I would suggest for example that no troop choice should have cc/rs over 15 and no more than 1 wound.


Aye, this is something I don't like. If every game changes to "assassinate the warlord", it's gonna get old really fast. Especially as everyone will just go with the Warlords that's hardest to kill.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 17, 2014 12:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2013 8:53 am
Posts: 269
Kollar wrote:

Well, I don't have the card in question. I suppose it's included with the Stalkers? The way you typed it out, the card "gave them an AV of ZERO against flamer attacks". It depends on what abbreviation is being used on the card, as well as if it's targeting the squad being attacked, or the squad attacking. As Vehicles have AV and Infantry have A, if the card reads that it gives a unit an AV of ZERO, I would argue that it only affects Vehicles (as troops don't have AV, only A). Without reading the card, or seeing a picture it's impossible to tell.


The card says (quote)
Quote:
Every Model in the target Squad has an Armour Value of 0 against Flamer type Attacks and gains Impenetrable Armour (12) against Piercing and Blast type Attacks


Kollar wrote:
How is she able to both shoot her flamer and attack in CC? If you are engaged (which she would have had to have been if she could attack afterwards, as it uses a models entire movement value to Rapid Deploy), she can only spend one action, and that has to be a CC attack or a Special CC attack?
enough proof? ;))


She didnt. Her friends did. She landed and shot. Then the next one landed in CC and attacked. Then the next one landed and attacked.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 17, 2014 12:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2013 9:34 am
Posts: 253
That card is ludicrous if printed like that. It's basically a card that just outrights kills a unit whenever there is a flamer nearby. I get what you meant about feeling like cheating. Also, didn't mean to question everything, I'm just curious as to the how things unfolded.

I don't know how your table looks, but the way we play it with "open" terrain, is probably a bit fairer, and does make sense a bit more as well. Think about it, how close would you land a helicopter too a wall? The base of our terrain pieces stick out at least an inch, usually more, on each side. And in buildings case, they usually contain some sort of rubble etc.

I really think they need to rebalance Advanced Game completely. A card like the one you talked about (assuming it costs 3) might have been somewhat fair, when you are burning half your resources from a turn (I still don't think it is), but when you have as much as 12 resources available it just feels like cheating. Think we'll stay with playing Basic game for quite some time. The cards needs to be balanced so that they influence the game, but not turn it even more random. Coming from Magic/Hearthstone/Duel of Champions, I know how insanely hard it is to balance cards.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 17, 2014 1:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2013 8:53 am
Posts: 269
The card costs 1 (tactical) :-D

Apart from that there are some really bad cards out there. And as you are most likely only drawing 9-10 of your 35 cards, chances are you are not drawing into the right ones. But if you do... well...


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 23 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


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:  
cron



Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
skymiles_red v1.0.1 designed by Team -Programming forum-سيارات للبيع .