|
Post by greytemplar on Apr 26, 2017 16:00:10 GMT
Is it any more arbitrary or unfair if that same person in that same situation pulls out a hail mary assassination run and kills your caster when all he has left on the field is a support solo and has caster? That's kinda one of the great thing about this game. You can always come from behind and yank a victory out from under your opponent. But its also important that every type of list have this option, be it a scenario victory or an assassination victory. If you can engineer a victory when you're losing the attrition war, its a perfectly valid win. Weather it's with assassination or by scenario. the problem with things as they are is that its not possible to eeek out a scenario victory, while it is still possible to do a long bomb assassination. Yet you somehow see the scenario victory like that to be somehow cheap, but I expect you are ok with an assassination in the same situation. Which makes no sense. And no, committing to the scenario does in fact mean fighting your opponent. Assuming he is also committing to the scenario. You're both fighting over a win condition. It's not just a game of kill the other guy's stuff, that's both boring and an unbalanced way of running a game. At least its unbalanced in terms of how this game functions. The various factions and units are not balanced around purely killing each other. Seriously, everything you're saying here is completely wrong. I don't even know where to start. How about here? Many newer players hate assassination victory. They think it's dumb that you lose the whole game when one guy dies, even if you were otherwise winning. What they don't realize is how essential this mechanic is to the game at the most fundamental level, and not just to balance the tremendous power of the casters, but the armies as a whole. That is what gives you the out against Khador armor, and that built-in catch-up mechanism keeps games interesting when they otherwise wouldn't be. Assassination victory is a big part of this game's identity. Letting you turtle in your corner runs counter to that. Punishing me for going after you only makes it worse. Stop saying that winning on scenario is impossible when literally dozens of players are doing it all the time. In fact, some are worried that it's too easy, at least in some circumstances. You're only undermining your own credibility and calling attention to everything else you have bass-ackward. On that last point, you do realize that this is a wargame right? Fighting the opponent and killing their stuff IS the point. The old scenarios and Race to 5 got in the way of that and gave you a system that you could game to avoid fighting. Like I said, that's the problem. You couldn't avoid killing your opponent's stuff with the older Steamroller stuff. It didn't encourage avoiding conflict. It gave you something to actually fight over instead of just plopping down 2 armies on a field arbitrarily. Yes, its a wargame. And the current scenarios do in fact reflect that. You're fighting over something, and there are many ways to justify the scenarios. You're fighting over a piece of territory, trying to destroy the enemy supplies, holding out till you can get a signal off to summon overwhelming reinforcements(representing the victory points), etc... Its just for competitive balance, we have to abstract the scenario elements and keep it somewhat generic. Scenario victory isn't impossible, its practically impossible. Learn the difference. Practically impossible means that it is not possible within the realm of what will happen in a typical game. You'll have outlier games where someone does win on scenario, but they are going to be a rare exception. This is wrong since not all armies, casters, or factions can equally compete in this new victory system. Many casters are only built to play the scenario game, and that has now become excessively difficult. These types of casters are also the ones which are most vulnerable to assassination, further disadvantaging them. This means that you'll be heavily altering what lists can and cannot be viable in a competitive environment, and majorly disadvantaging or advantaging certain factions. I'm sure you agree that that is a wrong way to approach the game.
|
|
|
Post by psycomonky on Apr 26, 2017 16:55:13 GMT
This seems disingenuous as many of those casters can play in the new environment with some minor tuning and many more casters who really couldn't survive a turn being pushed out of a scenario in the SR2016 will see a rise in quality when SR2017 drops. And I really doubt that entire factions will now become worse for it.
What many of the changes to the scenario and to the mk3 rule set seem to revolve around is to prevent a rule from just not allowing a player to play the game. Mk2 kruger 2 could charge into some scenarios, feat, and just flat out win. There are games up there where the opponent just didn't stand a chance. Removing those types of outcomes can only help the health of the game as a whole.
|
|
|
Post by Big Fat Troll on Apr 26, 2017 19:31:23 GMT
You couldn't avoid killing your opponent's stuff with the older Steamroller stuff. It didn't encourage avoiding conflict. It gave you something to actually fight over instead of just plopping down 2 armies on a field arbitrarily. Yes, its a wargame. And the current scenarios do in fact reflect that. You're fighting over something, and there are many ways to justify the scenarios. You're fighting over a piece of territory, trying to destroy the enemy supplies, holding out till you can get a signal off to summon overwhelming reinforcements(representing the victory points), etc... Its just for competitive balance, we have to abstract the scenario elements and keep it somewhat generic. Scenario victory isn't impossible, its practically impossible. Learn the difference. Practically impossible means that it is not possible within the realm of what will happen in a typical game. You'll have outlier games where someone does win on scenario, but they are going to be a rare exception. This is wrong since not all armies, casters, or factions can equally compete in this new victory system. Many casters are only built to play the scenario game, and that has now become excessively difficult. These types of casters are also the ones which are most vulnerable to assassination, further disadvantaging them. This means that you'll be heavily altering what lists can and cannot be viable in a competitive environment, and majorly disadvantaging or advantaging certain factions. I'm sure you agree that that is a wrong way to approach the game. You're the one who clearly can't tell the difference, and I clearly don't agree.You've got the blinders on here. We all do sometimes. Hell, get me started on the Krielstone and we'll switch places. You've got the blinders on here. We all do sometimes. Hell, get me started on the Krielstone and we'll switch places. I'm also trying very hard to be more patient and reasonable with people. So I say with more empathy than hypocrisy: You're not being reasonable about this. You're not even being honest about it, at all. I've tried to explain this to you, and honestly, more for the benefit of anyone else who might have similar concerns but be amenable to reason. So read the new Dev Talk. I think Hungerford explained it pretty well. Ask someone how a particular caster might shift tactics or list building to compensate. Take a breather, and think it over. Maybe you can adapt when you come back to it with a fresher perspective. Or maybe you'd be happier with Guild Ball or GRIND. There's no shame in that.
|
|
|
Post by Swampmist on Apr 26, 2017 20:01:34 GMT
ok, looks like we haven't been clear enough about the personal attacks and buttmunch behavior. Be angry all you want but stop throwing it at other people. I'm closing this thread down. Everybody go take a breather for an hour or two, then we can start discussion back up with clear heads.
|
|