|
|
Post by Mark Wightman on Jun 27, 2008 11:36:32 GMT
I did have MRoBalance as well so yes 6DD (-1PD as well, so equivalent to 7DD really). I think the main thing that shows is that magic defence was strong last year. If anything I would say it was the heavy anti-magic that has led to it, as moderate magic isn't worth fielding against most lists in our group. It then becomes a feed back loop, players need to bring more magic to pass the magic defence, and then people need more magic defence. It seems that most players feel one magic user can't provide sufficient magic defence, and if you are going to buy two then why not use them for offence. Blame the Dwarves! Sounds like a plan to me! And this year it doesn't look like anybody will be playing them. I may still give them a go though. Wish I could make my mind up  I expect the change is also due to people building better lists, as you correctly state Steves army was probably the most magically capable last time, but I would say that it was also one of the best designed. On top of which the new VC book and HE book weren't around last year. Blame Stephen, the Vamps and the Elves! Sounds like a plan to me! But this is almost back to why I started the thread. Those are two of the last three books released. If the Demon book were allowed then it would be the same - high powered magic. It just seems the way Warhammer is going. If this is deliberate from GW then I find it odd. More points spent on Characters means less bodies on the ground - which means less models bought. Rumours seem to suggest the Dark Elves will be the worst yet. |
|
|
|
Post by John on Jun 27, 2008 11:53:26 GMT
As much as all the new lists are very capable of decent magic phases, other armies can be but tend not to. Empire can have a build with (basically) 10 Power Dice for around 450 points (assuming Wizards can still be the general?) and Dark Elves can manage 9PD/6DD with 3+ power stones. Skaven which is one of the oldest books probably get the best value point for point out of magic at 1500. I certainly doubt Dark Elves will be worse for magic, their main ability is one that actually encourages less casters (the ability to use any number of dice to cast). The new Vamps and High Elves tend to be fielded more magic heavy because that is what people buy the army for (the image of mighty Elven Mages dominating the battlefield, or Vampires raising the dead), not because they actually get more effective (for cost) magic compared to other armies. - - - The Dwarves are a tough one, they are great but even with an aggressive army I find it hard to get a high VP score. You may well have more success though  |
|
|
|
Post by Mark Wightman on Jun 27, 2008 12:24:05 GMT
As much as all the new lists are very capable of decent magic phases, other armies can be but tend not to. The Dwarves are a tough one, they are great but even with an aggressive army I find it hard to get a high VP score. You may well have more success though The tournament scoring system, which rewards the big victories, is the one thing putting me off using them. Going into a game where you know you can't engage in hand-to-hand with an opponent who doesn't want to until turn 5 at the earliest isn't my idea of fun. I guess that's why most people go heavy shooty with them. Maybe I should use my Bretts, but their 3PD, 3DD 2 scrolls doesn't look like it would be able to cope  |
|
|
|
Post by Matt on Jun 27, 2008 15:17:31 GMT
The official line is that previous books didn't not encourage people to use the big lovely (often expensive) characters that were produced hence the change in the list. Most core troops have been reduced in price.
So they win both ways - they sell just as many core troops but they also sell the expensive characters.
They are also trying to emphasize the fantasy element of the game.
The last 3 lists are all magic orientated lists so you'd have to say what did you expect?
High Elves have always been magic and magic item heavy. VC's in the last edition were also dependent on characters and magic. Daemons - well they are the stuff of magic.
Personally I'm expecting to get completely owned in the magic phase and rely on my unreliable troops jumping people when they're not looking!
It all sounds a bit too serious for my liking but then I suppose it depends where you get your kicks.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stephen Mawson on Jun 27, 2008 15:29:53 GMT
The trouble is that the scoring system means that a solid victory is worth twice as much as a minor victory and a massacre two and half times a minor win. A draw is barely worth any points at all in comparison.
If it was me I'd be tempted to tweak the scoring slightly to the following:
Massacre: 5 - 0
Solid Victory: 4 - 0
Minor Victory: 3 - 1
Draw: 2 - 2
Those scores make striving for a draw in a game you're loosing slightly actually worth the effort, and means that the difference between a minor win and a complete thrashing of your opponent while still significant is not quite as vast.
Personally I think this years tournament ought to be a closer affair than last years. Partly as at lot of people appear to have spent a reasonable amount of time and thought on designing their armies, and partly as everyones play looks more competative than last time, I guess after last year people are more into the competative play mindset.
|
|
|
|
Post by ralkr56 on Jun 28, 2008 9:02:17 GMT
3 - 1 for a minor victory you have got to be winding me up. That would just encourage more gamesmanship - I would be a dwarf again every time using guerrilla warfare tactics. The points are there to encourage people to get fighting. Hence a draw can end 2 - 1 or even 2 - 2 if you kill enough of the enemy. i.e rewards some good hard fought battles whereas people who stand off can only get 1 point each. Not sure why you thing the league will be closer I think it will be more extreme in results with even more massacres  |
|
|
|
Post by ralkr56 on Jun 28, 2008 9:06:14 GMT
As for the escalation in magic I blame Mark. People who hide armies in trees all the time encourage others to go for non line of sight offensive magic to strike back?  |
|
|
|
Post by John on Jun 28, 2008 9:52:03 GMT
Personally I think this years tournament ought to be a closer affair than last years. Partly as at lot of people appear to have spent a reasonable amount of time and thought on designing their armies, and partly as everyones play looks more competative than last time, I guess after last year people are more into the competative play mindset. Not sure why you thing the league will be closer I think it will be more extreme in results with even more massacres I actually think you are both right.... The overall positions are likely to be closer, for the reasons Steve M states. Although as people are building lists designed for big wins, most individual games will be massacres. |
|
|
|
Post by Mark Wightman on Jun 28, 2008 16:46:26 GMT
As for the escalation in magic I blame Mark. People who hide armies in trees all the time encourage others to go for non line of sight offensive magic to strike back? Blame me! Phthfftph! I'm almost tempted to see if my tree-huggers could defend their title with a unchanged list. But if I'm going to be tarred with causing the Magical upsurge, then I may trot out a HE 9+D3 PD abomination. Flame on! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Matt on Jul 8, 2008 18:00:32 GMT
Well if anybody can lend me some new magic dice that would be great.
My Bray Shaman sucked! Mind you so did the rest of the army ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Stephen Mawson on Jul 8, 2008 21:41:59 GMT
My point about the points really was that if you are slightly loosing a game, there is no real incentive to push for a draw, as you only get a single point for the draw, which you'll get for a minor loss anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by John on Jul 9, 2008 11:49:16 GMT
I can see the reasoning behind Stephen's scoring and behind the original system. Any scoring system is going to bring in some form of bias, and playing to the system.
I tend to prefer systems that encourage dynamic games, but obviously this buffs some armies and harms others.
|
|
|
|
Post by ralkr56 on Jul 9, 2008 21:33:54 GMT
My logic for the points system is that if people do not really want to fight and spend 6 turns avoiding combat they will only get 1 point each for a draw.
If people get stuck in then there are 5 points to be shared between them, or at worst if they draw but there are high casualties each side they get 2 points each.
Getting 0 for losing a Solid Victory result could lead to people giving up near the end of games rather than trying to stave off a massacre when you get 0 as well.
If I was going to change anything I think on reflection I would make the +1 point for causing 750 points (perhaps 500 would be better - that is a third of your opposition dead) of casualties eligble to all losing sides as well as the draw so a SV could be 3 - 2 or 3 - 3, a MV could be 4 - 1 or 4 -2, and a Massacre could be 5 - 0 or 5 -1.
Perhaps net year - suggestions always welcomed that is what the forum is for.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stephen Mawson on Jul 10, 2008 7:57:26 GMT
That all sounds eminantly sensible.
|
|
