|
Post by Charistoph on Jun 7, 2019 19:16:42 GMT
If there is a ban, it would be like not allowing Huge-based models, with the exception of a specific scenario that would be a kaiju stomp.
|
|
|
Post by dirtyharrypotter on Jun 7, 2019 22:44:10 GMT
Nothing wrong with houseruling.
And if there's a market for small games, and that market is better served (or made feasible at all) with some bans, who cares? Sure, it's unpleasant, but overall it will be better... unless of course they rewrite the rules for those models to better fit small point games.
And if we're honest and talk about balance, who really likes over the top models such as that bird guy from circle? (Can't for the life of me remember the name of that solo) It is completely rediculous at any point value.
|
|
|
Post by netdragon on Jun 9, 2019 9:41:16 GMT
Nothing wrong with houseruling. And if there's a market for small games, and that market is better served (or made feasible at all) with some bans, who cares? Sure, it's unpleasant, but overall it will be better... unless of course they rewrite the rules for those models to better fit small point games. And if we're honest and talk about balance, who really likes over the top models such as that bird guy from circle? (Can't for the life of me remember the name of that solo) It is completely rediculous at any point value.
Exactly my point about design. Warcasters are the main offenders, but there are several character units, solos, warjacks, etc that "break" the points balance.
|
|
|
Post by hocestbellum on Jun 9, 2019 10:20:02 GMT
I find that a lot of the game breaking things are only so because of themes, or specific interactions. So, take the Lord of the Feast. If he's not free, doesn't start with a corpse, and can't be fed corpses by the Spirit Cauldron... He's good, but not game breaking. Especially at lower points values; if you're playing 20-25 points, do you want so spend 11 (LotF + Cauldron) of them on a combo to get one effective model?
|
|
Cyel
Junior Strategist
Posts: 685
|
Post by Cyel on Jun 9, 2019 16:37:04 GMT
When I run tournies for begginers I use simplified scenarios.
It's usually 25-35pts, no Themes, no Huge Bases.
2 zones, whatever shape, set symmetrically ( not necessarily centered on the middle line ). Scored and contested by everything, with the exceptions of units, which must have all models within the zone to score.
4CPs advantage or casterkill wins, otherwise the time limit is 45min (relaxed Deathclock) or 7 turns (I don't think it's ever happened)
It's easy to remember and works very well for newbies.
|
|
|
Post by dirtyharrypotter on Jun 10, 2019 14:19:57 GMT
∆ ∆ ∆
Fine example of a good houserule. How people can object to stuff like that just boggles my mind.
|
|
|
Post by elladan52 on Jun 10, 2019 14:32:25 GMT
Hey if it works, it works.
We were considering some scenarios a little more sudden death style, like with a single flag and objective on both sides, but you can only score the enemy flag and play to 2 or 3 points.
|
|
|
Post by dirtyharrypotter on Jun 10, 2019 16:53:04 GMT
See now you're getting into another reason small point games are not a good idea for long term gameplay. Banning stuff is anti-fun because maybe someone really likes a particular unit that you've decided to ban. So its really best for everyone involved to play the game with the end goal of reaching 75ish point games. For balance and freedom of choice purposes so that everybody can build their lists how they want to. I just wanted to get back to these points, they having been nagging on me. Second point is first, that people should just play the 75pt format, that it's even best (for them). There can be a zound of reasons that's just not true. Maybe people don't have a lot of time, or want to play a lot of games, or just lije supershort games (like when the game first came out) or feel uncomfortable with the intricacies of a 75pt game, or don't have a workable 75pt collection, or just don't like that gamesize (for whatever reason o e can think of), or perhaps someone just likes "to fight the system". All are valid reasons to depart from a 75pt format, all are valid reasons why it would be nice to have a workable rulesset designed for small games. On to the first point. The game is balanced around a 75 pt format, and it's far from perfect even at that. Plenty of models never see use, plenty of models are used all the f***** time. The same is true for themes, that's just the way it is. What's more, ever since cid was introduced balance turned into an armsrace. Please don't deny it, that's childish. Much, much more models come out of cid with a buff then with a nerf, and almost every model comes out of cid superduper awesome instead of solid (which should be the aim of true balancing). Nothing wrong with that perse, but just something to have in mind when talking about creating a balanced rulesset for small games. Because unbalanced models will greatly impact such games. Sure, it might"not be fun", but those that are truly interested will have to admit and see the reason to banning certain models from this format, or at the least see the sense of putting a warninglabel on them or something. Unless of course one is not interested in a balanced game, but then a rulesset shouldn't be hindrance at all right, bugger all! Life isn't perfect, but I'd rather have a restricted unitselection then not have such a rulesset at all, because small games are fun and deserve a dedicated approach. It would literally be hurting noone whatsoever to have this conversation about banning certain units or unit types from this format.
|
|
mazog
Junior Strategist
Walking and talking
Posts: 748
|
Post by mazog on Jun 11, 2019 3:16:29 GMT
Dirtyharrypotter I thought Company of Iron had an interesting take with the resource cost. "Sure, you can take that badass thing, but it will cost you flexibility!"
I am still sad that one did not take off, it was fairly entertaining.
|
|
|
Post by hocestbellum on Jun 11, 2019 8:15:56 GMT
Dirtyharrypotter I thought Company of Iron had an interesting take with the resource cost. "Sure, you can take that badass thing, but it will cost you flexibility!" I am still sad that one did not take off, it was fairly entertaining. I've been wondering if its day is truly done. If Riot Quest takes off and generates interest, then perhaps PP will turn their attention back to it? Multiple games in which all the models are interchangeable seems like it might have potential, and if they continue their 'rules are free' thing, then it's quite an interesting progression. Buy some models for Riot Quest, buy some more models and move to CoI, buy a warcaster and play WMH. There's a lot of 'if' in that, though, so I'm not holding my breath. But it would be nice to see
|
|
Munindk
Junior Strategist
Posts: 210
|
Post by Munindk on Jun 11, 2019 8:39:15 GMT
So its really best for everyone involved to play the game with the end goal of reaching 75ish point games. For balance and freedom of choice purposes so that everybody can build their lists how they want to. I'm with you on the banning is bad point, but what if peoples end goal isnt playing 75pts games? I think the obvious reasons would be time and financial constraints, and as a tangent on time constraints fewer points mean less complexity which is helpful for someone like me, who often go months without getting a game it. On the complexity thing, I think the way to go is to keep things simple: 2 lists allowed, 25pts, no themes, no bans. Clever scenarios can take the edge of a lot of combos or skewed lists, by requiring solos, infantry and jacks/beasts to score points. I guess I'm saying that you could try to balance it with scenarios?
|
|
|
Post by challenger on Jun 11, 2019 10:11:00 GMT
I am very sure Company of Iron is dead. The problem with CoI is that it just didn't do anything interesting. it was very very 'by the numbers' and it was very easy to play a max card strategy and make up for quality with more boosts and cards.
It needed some kind of special spark like Kill Team and Underworlds got to survive
|
|
Munindk
Junior Strategist
Posts: 210
|
Post by Munindk on Jun 11, 2019 11:55:23 GMT
They made pretty big deal about CoI with 2 new miniatures and a fancy starterset with 2 repackaged units too, but very little follow up. 5-6 Insiders talking about lists, a couple of video battle reports and that was it.
For all the effort they put into the release I was expecting more. It would have been better to publish the rules in NQ and leave it at that, like the other small games they created around that time.
|
|
|
Post by hocestbellum on Jun 11, 2019 12:04:21 GMT
I am very sure Company of Iron is dead. The problem with CoI is that it just didn't do anything interesting. it was very very 'by the numbers' and it was very easy to play a max card strategy and make up for quality with more boosts and cards. It needed some kind of special spark like Kill Team and Underworlds got to survive That only makes it dormant, really. Given that you use the models from WMH they are continuing the expensive part of supporting it already; new models continue to be released. The rules are already online for free, so all they need to do is put the cards online as well. Then, if they need to shake things up, they could rewrite everything just by releasing a couple of PDFs. I was under the impression it was well-received, though; was it really that dull?
|
|
|
Post by netdragon on Jun 11, 2019 15:54:28 GMT
So its really best for everyone involved to play the game with the end goal of reaching 75ish point games. For balance and freedom of choice purposes so that everybody can build their lists how they want to. I'm with you on the banning is bad point, but what if peoples end goal isnt playing 75pts games? I think the obvious reasons would be time and financial constraints, and as a tangent on time constraints fewer points mean less complexity which is helpful for someone like me, who often go months without getting a game it. On the complexity thing, I think the way to go is to keep things simple: 2 lists allowed, 25pts, no themes, no bans. Clever scenarios can take the edge of a lot of combos or skewed lists, by requiring solos, infantry and jacks/beasts to score points. I guess I'm saying that you could try to balance it with scenarios?
I usually get this argument when talking about low point lists. Many players think of these as journeyman games to bring people to a full army.
I don't want to play 75-pt games (which end up being 90-100 pts); my ideal would be smaller, faster, more dynamic games.
CoI is great, I managed to play it once (sigh). My meta didn't like it as it meant buying unit cards again, and then trying to get the playing cards in Europe separately as the starter had the most unappealing miniature selection for a starter ever. And then there was no organized play for CoI, so interest was non-existent.
|
|