|
|
Post by mike1975 on Dec 4, 2014 17:18:59 GMT
That's my fault. I did up and gave them an errata before the convention from things that I found. It also included clarification on what the difference between Flight, Hover, and Afterburner and all were since some players seems confused.
|
|
mouse
New Member
Posts: 18 
|
Post by mouse on Dec 4, 2014 17:26:39 GMT
Well I have played the game a few times.  Not the most elegant system, but it is still fun. Also I think they pretty well translated the feel from the cartoon pretty well. You can knock them for a lot of questionable choices, but I like the overall feel so far (all my players thought it felt very Robotechy). You can also feel a bit of the old RPG in the mini game. Again maybe a questionable choice, but I kind of like it. I'm not sure If this game will ever be a competitive game like many other contemporary mini games (War machine, 40K, Malifeaux). But i think it offers a kind of fun war games that multiple players per side can have fun with blowing each other up (something not really seen with the more current mini games). Also, I like the ability to have a "named pilot" who advances with time. I think this game has a lot potential for a story based campaign. I have already written up a 7 part campagn for my players to do.  |
|
|
|
Post by ItsUncertainWho on Dec 4, 2014 18:35:49 GMT
That's my fault. I did up and gave them an errata before the convention from things that I found. It also included clarification on what the difference between Flight, Hover, and Afterburner and all were since some players seems confused. I wasn't trying to place blame on you. I was pointing out that when a play tester comes up with what you did, before the game is in peoples hands, there is a problem with the game. I firmly believe that we have Beta rules at best. When you start a demo and the guy whose name is on the front of the rule book proudly states that "Ninja Divisions rules were shit, so I rewrote them!", everything is taken with a grain of salt. |
|
brian
New Member
Posts: 91 
|
Post by brian on Dec 5, 2014 15:57:25 GMT
Playing my first game this weekend. So far the rules look pretty good to me. I'm sure we'll establish a few house rules for certain situations.
I've played a ton of games. I don't think these rules are overly complicated or confusing. I think some confusion comes from not reading the rules that closely. I know I see a bunch of questions on various boards about things that are explained very clearly in the book.
Now Mike1975 very clearly prefers a more complex game, as his rules and mech cards show. But I don't think that is necessarily what everyone wants or that it automatically makes a better game.
|
|
|
|
Post by mike1975 on Dec 5, 2014 18:06:55 GMT
That's my fault. I did up and gave them an errata before the convention from things that I found. It also included clarification on what the difference between Flight, Hover, and Afterburner and all were since some players seems confused. I wasn't trying to place blame on you. I was pointing out that when a play tester comes up with what you did, before the game is in peoples hands, there is a problem with the game. I firmly believe that we have Beta rules at best. When you start a demo and the guy whose name is on the front of the rule book proudly states that "Ninja Divisions rules were shit, so I rewrote them!", everything is taken with a grain of salt. The my fault was tongue in cheek, no worries |
|
|
|
Post by mike1975 on Dec 5, 2014 18:08:20 GMT
Playing my first game this weekend. So far the rules look pretty good to me. I'm sure we'll establish a few house rules for certain situations. I've played a ton of games. I don't think these rules are overly complicated or confusing. I think some confusion comes from not reading the rules that closely. I know I see a bunch of questions on various boards about things that are explained very clearly in the book. Now Mike1975 very clearly prefers a more complex game, as his rules and mech cards show. But I don't think that is necessarily what everyone wants or that it automatically makes a better game. Actually my cards just have the same stats all on one card instead of looking at mecha cards and squadron cards seperately |
|
John
New Member
Posts: 5
|
Post by John on Dec 12, 2014 23:09:44 GMT
Nobody other than you is claiming that the assigned points are "arbitrary". The designers clearly stated that they assigned points based on how units function in relation to each other. That is the smart way to assign points because it takes into account performance which means an increased likelihood of balance. But there's the rub ... the designer's also gave us the ability to build forces in ways that do not have to respect how units function with each other at all. You want to build a 300pt list that includes 12 Phalanx or Light Artillery pods. You can. How do they relate to other units in the game? Who cares. Those other units aren't required to be in the lists thanks to the army construction rules. - Are those fun lists to play against? Not at all.
- Can I picture a scene from the show that one of those lists emulates? Nope.
- Are they totally allowed in the rules. You betcha.
And when you show up at the game store and try to get pickup games or hold an escalation event order to get more players excited about the game, those folks are going to use points to make their lists. Sure, it's easy to say, well those lists are abusive and no fun, I won't play against it ... and that's totally cool. I wouldn't want to waste time playing against them either ... but the rules are not built in a way that necessarily promotes well rounded lists along the lines of what we saw on TV. My point isn't that people can't make balanced lists. We can. My point is that the rules, as written, using the existing force composition rules, cards, and points values, leave much to be desired in terms of equal points having equal impacts on the game. It's a problem at the unit level (mismatched points) and the force composition level (Macross missile spam). |
|
brian
New Member
Posts: 91
|
Post by brian on Dec 13, 2014 0:10:42 GMT
Somebody who takes 12 Phalanx or 12 Light Artillery Pods is going to be in for a world of hurt if the other person goes first. Yeah, Phalanx are nasty, but IIRC they don't have any anti-missile abilities. Their guns also aren't indirect. One pissed off Quaedluun Rau can end your whole day. I'd boost her speed 2 or 3 times, zip her across the board behind your Phalanxes, and then open up with a rapid fire barrage of mini-missiles.
She's gunnery 3, so with bonuses from shooting you in the back, she needs a 2 to hit your Def of 5. Her grenade launcher is a 12 MD blast, so she'll shoot that too. That plus 16 mini-missiles is a pretty good round of fire. It's likely that half your army or more will be dead by the end of the round from that one chick.
If you take a rock paper scissors army, that's the type of game you'll get. We're still figuring out this game and the balances involved. Personally I think tactics and terrain will play a much bigger role than simple list building.
|
|
brian
New Member
Posts: 91
|
Post by brian on Dec 13, 2014 2:52:20 GMT
300 point Zentraedi list (to kill Phalanxes):
3 Quaedluun Rau -- 100 pts (according to force org chart on the Kickstarter page)
Miriya -- 10 pts
Regult Attrition Squad -- 70 pts
Glaug -- 20 pts
Azonia -- 5 pts
Regult Attrition Squad -- 70 pts
Glaug -- 20 pts
Grell -- 5 pts
29 Mecha
22 Command Points
You've got enough command points to boost the speed of each of the QR 3 times, fire all their weapons, and rapid fire the missiles. You'll have 4 command points left for defense. You will put out 3 blast templates at 12 MD, 3 inescapable shots at 4 MD, and 48 missiles at 2 MD each. There's a solid chance that you can kill that group of 12 Phalanxes in one round.
|
|
John
New Member
Posts: 5
|
Post by John on Dec 13, 2014 18:58:31 GMT
300 point Zentraedi list (to kill Phalanxes): ... List with three female battle armors, three characters, and four officers pods redacted. ... Brian, lol, you just proved my point. This thread isn't about who can make the most overpowered lists, it is about mismatched point values and a subpar list construction rules. Let me repeat, "My point is that the rules, as written, using the existing force composition rules, cards, and points values, leave much to be desired in terms of equal points having equal impacts on the game." Your counter is a list with three female battle armors, three characters, and four officers pods. That's even worse! Your combat scenario, while somewhat optimistic, is great: A single 100pt, 3-model, unit has a fair shot at taking out three units, containing 12 models, valued at 3000pts ... in one turn. Your argument isn't that composition rules aren't broken. Your argument is that they can be broken even worse. :/ |
|
brian
New Member
Posts: 91
|
Post by brian on Dec 13, 2014 19:40:29 GMT
Only two officer pods in my list.  My point is that there's no reason to go around bemoaning broken lists yet, because everyone is still figuring out how the game works. Six months from now we'll be saying "boy, do you remember when people thought taking 3 female power armor and just loading up on command points was really broken? Ha ha ha." At the end of the day, we're dealing with the first edition of a game that most of us have barely played. |
|
|
|
Post by kyron23 on Dec 17, 2014 0:12:44 GMT
I'm fielding four squads per army right now, and using a recon pod in every Zen squad is really paying off. They brig 3 CP for just 15 pts, relay constant gunnery to attacking units, and even draw lots of UEDF fire away from other units, in an attempt to thin out Zen CPs. Using them to 'jam' gunnery on enemy aces isn't quite as effective, but they really bring a lot to the army. BGMM! has anyone had an allied blast missile deviate back into your own lines? Happened last nite- a Heavy Arty misfired and took out two Regults by accident. Painful but awesome. Oh the tragedy of friendly fire...
|
|
|
|
Post by n815e on Dec 18, 2014 15:24:34 GMT
That is actually a supposition on your part.
Sure. That kind of force may do well against some, but one-trick lists don't have flexibility and a more balanced list will tend to do better in the long run. It would be easy enough to come up with something to exploit the weaknesses of something like that.
This is from your extensive experience playing the game?
Show me a game where people that rely on points matching don't encounter balance issues. Every game where the players are using points as the sole balancing mechanism will have imbalances, auto-includes and "overpriced" items in list builds.
|
|
|
|
Post by mike1975 on Dec 21, 2014 22:22:12 GMT
Build your Phalanx Squadrons. There are a number of ways to defeat them.
1. FPA
2. Pods with Pirion Galar or whatever his name is that allows a free boost.
3. Gnerls
4. Just about anything. Phalanxes have 2 weaknesses. VERY BIG weaknesses. They cannot fire at something under 2.5 inches or they will damage themselves AND if you spread out your pods so that none are withing 2 inches of each other every turn the awesome super cool missiles can only kill ONE Pod. Missiles must all target the same unit because volleys can only hit other targets within 2 inches of each other. All you would need is to boost ONE unit, whatever you want, into HTH and the Phalanx is toast.
So I say to any wanting to take an extreme tactic like that and say that it cannot be defeated, please do so. I will smile as I take them apart. Predictable = DEAD.
|
|
