Jump to content

Angry Ewok

Members
  • Content Count

    36
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Angry Ewok

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I wish they would though, I mean if I design a game, the best stress test of what I have created is to experience what competitive play is like, I know they are probably playing with stuff 18 months ahead of where we are now, but its still important to see what other non-likeminded people do with the thing you have created.
  2. yah but they are not multi role enough to be a consistent good choice in a list currently. This may change with time. Hopefully the new vehicles address this. The game could be helped a great deal by just doing a points rebalance. Make Darth Vader 160 like Luke, Make AT-ST's either cheaper or give them a built in pass mechanic (similar to Stratigic Advisor in Armada) and the Air Speeder needs to be about 20 points cheaper and/or surge to hit. Corner peaking making snipers immune to 1 shotting unless you have really fast stuff that can flank them and is the main issue with the counters you mention, mortars do threaten them same as other snipers, but the ability to corner peak insures the unit gets a new lease on life and are in no danger of being wiped out or decreasing in offensive output. Now, if Mortars could kill models out of line of sight... as they should, then there would be another real counter option that does not force a commander card use or use of your own snipers. Aside from the issues I mentioned, the main concern is how powerful activation count is in a game where controlling an objective boils down to the # of unit leaders you have near/on stuff most of the time. A full health AT-ST that steps onto the center Key Positions objective can be canceled out by a single Trooper model who delays their activation until the enemy is activated out, and sneaks over. Despite the vast and obvious disparity in combat power possessed by these 2 units, the objective is "controlled," by neither of them, and can be "controlled" by 2 such trooper models even though we all know they have no where near the fighting power of the AT-ST. Thus, quantity is the desired quality (not going to use the old Stalin quote) in this situation. Giving expensive, powerful units the ability to count as multiple units for scoring or scoring by point value would do much to curb the wanton spam of activations. Why do we hate activation padding you may ask? Because it takes FAR FAR LESS brain power to make good tactical choices and plays when the enemy has activated out. When there is no threat of reprisal until after the next command card (giving you a chance to react), the number of safe plays and easy targets skyrocket, you end up make better moves often not because you are a better player, but because you have access to much better data than your opponent. You are playing checkers while he is being forced to play chess to counter you. That is not fair in a mental contest where the point is to test your mental skills against one another on a fair playing field.
  3. I think it is important to make a distinction between being a nice human being and robbing the other player of the chance for a challenging game where both players can engage and can compete on an even playing field while still fielding the units they want to. Being a nice person is just expected of everyone, it includes things like stopping in the middle of your game and explaining rules to a bystander, or allowing the other player to go back and correct a missed opportunity that they messed up the timing on. (Example a Snow trooper unit that tries to move, aim then steady, and you let the guy go back and Aim, Move, then steady) Being nice is just not being a jerk in general, and should be expected, you don't get a sticker for doing what is expected. On the other hand, a person (the nicest, most considerate person you can imagine) can choose to take a list that is intentionally abusive, simple to run, and passive. That "nice," person is inflicting their over simplified, flavorless, tactically watered down version of Legion on everyone else they play and that's not honorable. By taking such a list, they put pressure on other players who want to use units that may be weak to unlimited range attacks that mitigate cover and armor, or that are to points heavy, for fear of losing games not because they got out played, but because they got out listed. The success of the spam troops, spam snipers, use the rest of your points on something you actually have to think about how to use, style of lists even when run by the most gentlemanly player, is a stain on the community because of the list building shadow it cast, restricting what other people feel like they can bring to major events, encouraging the mentality of activation spam because of how powerful that is in the current objective only scoring system, and just in general creating a situation where. Snipers are CURRENTLY to good for their points because they have few viable counters that are not Commander Specific, or involve using the exact same units. When one of the available options for list building is so good that all other options must struggle to justify themselves under the standard of "why not just the same points in sniper teams," something needs to be done. In the mean time, we who want this to remain an intellectual contest not a list writing/I spent more money on sniper teams than you contest, should temper ourselves and use such units in moderation, not as a max out the slot auto include which renders most games into either mirror matches, or games where the guy who did not give in to the meta must fight this mental contest from a position of disadvantage based on how easy to use his opponent's list is to run and how few actual risks it must take to achieve victory. Win with tactics, or lose with class but don't bring a google search list that puts training wheels on your games for you. Where is the honor in that?
  4. Balance is important at all times, not just when the game is 5 years old Taking the path of least resistance and willfully spamming units that are clearly an issue and ignore massive portions of the rules system, should not be celebrated but shunned, Winning by running the proven meta proves nothing, it just means you are willing to buy, paint, and play them, and have a functional internet browser. It also proves that you are willing to remove the tactical depth and variety of varied lists in favor of a watered down version of the game where you no longer care what token you pull because your list is such a blah fest of timing neutral units and copy past range 3 troops choices. You say it is efficient and competitive (and it is) but you are turning the game from chess into checkers. The way you win is far more important to if you win. Play with something that does not cheapen the experience for all the people you have to play...
  5. The primary issue (beyond that snipers are to cheap, easy to use, and have an abundance of ways to ignore conventional rules of the game) is that they are far harder to kill than any other 44 point units and far more effective. Corner peaking alone insures that it will require a minimum of 2 activations to kill them Unlimited Range (not usually a good game design choice in general BTW as it drastically limits counter play options) allows them to ignore most of the threatening units on the field Pushing forward with conventional units to engage them is an potion but that is usually impractical because it over extends your force. It also forces the attacking unit to spend several of its limited actions to close the distance dropping its efficiency all while the snipers laugh and either fire and move out of LoS or Aim fire if in no immediate danger. They are highly likely to produce 1 dead model (roughly 60%) no matter if that is an expensive unit with great armor, (paying a lot of points for that armor), or if it is a cheap model, it also ignores the Dodge token nullifying one of the primary potential counter plays against it. And will likely still get its kill even when shooting into heavy cover, once again circumventing another major options for limiting incoming damage from small dice pool units. The units gets to ignore or mitigate the following mechanics conventionally used to mitigate damage: cover, range, armor, dodge, Magic bullets are no brainers... and are a detriment to the back and forth of play and counter play. They over simplify the game and reward ppl for taking them, not for playing well. Kwatchi's post above only makes my point more...
  6. The game is built with 5 options in each battle deck category. Blue player cuts 1 currently from their deck and one is unused, I am encouraging the inclusion of other missions that allow points for to be scored by killing units. This does not invalidate the current all objective based missions we currently have but the inclusion of kill point oriented missions would give the option for lower activation armies to include these missions in their list. There needs to be a threat/disincentive to just spam the cheapest most efficient, units simply to pad activations. Ask any "top player," what the best non-core unit is. They will unilaterally say Strike Teams. I get tired of hearing players go through their lists and post game wrap ups saying "well I wish I had more snipers," They are a pandemic issue when they are as prevalent as they are. They also do not have similarly cheap, similarly effective counters. They only other units that can threaten at that range are other snipers and command cards... We would not see them being used as much if they had weapons that make them come into range of other more standard line units. When a unit's only effective counter is itself we as players need to be asking ourselves if using that unit is good for the game, my suggestion is that they are terrible for the game. More 4+ range weapons and or ignore LoS weapons would fix them quickly btw. Just imagine the massive amount of variety we would see in legion lists if Snipers could only be taken inside full sized Scout Trooper and Rebel Commando units, this does not invalidate peoples purchase of the models, but then drastically shifts the meta and allows other units to be fielded more easly without being squeezed out by Sniper Strike Teams, Ex. Death Troopers, Wookies, Pathfinders, The full sized Scout and Commando units, al of which are good and fun but often overlooked when compared to the point and click effectiveness of corner peaking sniper teams.
  7. Derrault you are trying to give us lessons on statistical significance, the law of large numbers, etc. We get it, you are arguing that the stuff we are saying will not hold up in a peer reviewed academic article. Your right!!! No one cares.... Snipers are very common among players that placed near the top of the large events we mentioned, every event I go to they are played extensively. I played a 3 round event and a cut game Saturday, in 4 games I faced 7 sniper teams. No other non-core unit in the game approaches this absurd level of popularity. That should sound alarm bells in everyone's heads. Any time a unit is that popular, especially if that unit is that popular regardless of faction, it needs to be examined and dealt with because it is crowding out other options from seeing high level play. It also does not help that snipers prey on bigger, more elite units, they are a death trooper's worst nightmare... They make expensive units that use range, good armor, or cover, a liability when you suspect they will be chipped down easily by shooting that bypasses their expensive gear and can strike from any range. When you expect to see 3 units of these every game why would you risk it? The real issue is that the game is so heavily skewed toward MSU, high activation count leveraging lists that anything over about 75 points has a hard time seeing play. People are scarred to run below 10 activations because activations are so good. If there was a support unit released right now that was 45 points, unless it was truly useless, it would also be spammed for the exact same reason as snipers... for activation padding. You would see 3 of these units just to pad activations. You can call it redundancy to justify it, but it simplifies the game down from a concert of different units interacting down to a monotone of "corner peak, fire, repeat," The Z-6 and trooper spam is equally simplistic and robs the game of the diversity it could have but they are core units so its hard to do much about it. We all easily see that redundancy is great, specially to control an order pool, we all easily see the advantage of Last/First, its supper obvious. Infinite range weapons that ignore things like cover and armor is obviously very consistent. Competitive lists are best when they are all these things, its super obvious why the 6 trooper 3 sniper lists are good, but it does not create a game state that encourages much of an actual game. What good is winning if the manor in which you win is formulaic and simplistic. Did you win through tactical ingenuity or through simply fielding the most efficient list? PLAY SOMETHING THAT IS MORE CHALLENGING!!! Lists designed to leverage the same 2-3 units over and over again does not make you a tactical genius, just a guy who is willing to forgo the chance for a real game in order to make your job of winning easier.
  8. Top 8 at Adepticon: of the 8 top list, 5 had 3 Snipers, the other 3 lists had 2 Sniper teams each. Top 6 at LVO did see one list with a single Sniper team in it (augmented by naked Stormtroopers,) Between the 6 lists there were 14 sniper teams... 14 list => 1 list did not include multiple sniper teams The data pretty directly refutes your statement. When a non-mandatory unit is that prolific across both factions of the game at the highest levels of play it is a massive issue My concern is that activation count is more important than tactical usefulness in list design right now in legion... Snipers are the cheapest non core option available so they are spammed, they may not be broken but high activation count is... To my original point, I think we need mission changes to reduce the activation arms race so we can quite counting activations so much and actually take units on their merits not simply their point costs. The design space for a game with only objective based win conditions is limited and results in the uniform formula for success we see now in the list mentioned above.
  9. The OP was aimed at 1. pointing out the really cookie cutter meta that is being played, (max long range efficient cores, plus snipers) and challenge the community to do better than simply spamming this easy button in order to win, ( we all can crunch the numbers and see why its good (your not special and smarter than everyone else bc you bought 3 boxes of snipers) 2. to hopefully get people to consider a kill point oriented mission option or an alternate means of scoring that diminishes the overwhelming advantage MSU style lists have in a purely objective based mission. there need to be other missions in the deck that they must plan to counter, hopefully discouraging the mono build style we are seeing 3. point out that very few if any lists in the top 8 of LVO, LCQ, or Adepticon HC did not have at least 1, if not 2-3 Sniper teams regardless of faction, I chaff hard against a unit that is that ubiquitous across both factions, people should not feel like they have to play with at least 2 snipers or they are starting behind, but the results we are seeing bears that out repeatedly. We should not have to buy multiple copies of no-core units to be competitive. Hopefully the shore troopers have a range 4+ indirect fire weapon to counter this massively disproportionate use of a single non-core unit option. #SniperTeamsAreTheFlotillasofLegion PS we hate flotilla spam for the same reason
  10. I just want to lend my support to the camp of more LoS blocking terrain, in most cases 1-2, 5 inch square LoS blockers in the middle of the table are enough to greatly break up the table and allow shorter range units to close the distance without always getting chewed up. This does a lot to bring list diversity back to the for. I did not play at Adepticon, had the invite but 18 month old twins don't allow much travel usually, but the stream games did not have the large LoS pieces needed to pull this off. Temples don't count, they are to large and shallow to allow units to quickly pop in and out of concealment.
  11. Just as an example, in Warhammer 40k during 7th edition the ITC Mission packet had a primary mission, a secondary mission, and tertiary objectives that all combine into an overall score that determined victory. They weighted the primary more heavily than the others but it was possible to contest but barely loose the primary and win the game by dominating secondary and tertiary objectives. Kill Point Objectives, in conjunction with things like slay the warlord, marked for death, and other kill unit related secondary missions tempered the benefits of mass MSU. This could be very useful in Legion to. In fact, you were hard pressed to find a large, respected 40k event that does run a mission packet that only had a single "primary," win condition because of the skew it has on list design. 40k is, like I said above, a money pit game, that does not design a thinking mans game but rather a wealthy mans game, but they do have some lessons to teach legion about tournament design. I honestly don't think Snipers, DLT Troopers, and Z-6's Troopers perform as dominantly if people cant concentrate their whole list on a target because there is little if any LOS on the table. On tables with lots of actual LOS blocking cover they can't leverage their firepower as easily, heavy terrain opens up a lot of more splash oriented units that can not take a whole army worth of shooting, but can be dominate in a limited engagement against lesser, less specialized units. The Heavy weapon as the unit leader rule is what makes Snipers usable, but it is also a artificial safety blanket they don't deserve to have, Corner Peaking plus that rule make them way more effort to remove than they are worth.
  12. I would support a pass mechanic as well, it takes the arbitrary activation count out of the equation and lets people focus on creating lists and including units based on their merits, not their total activation count across the list. Armada eventually went to a hard cap of 2 on Flotillas to stim an activation escalation tide, it helped a bit...
  13. I do, I just think its sad that at the highest levels, ppl cop out and spam units because its easy to run and safe, robbing games of diversity and depth legion actually has but is often not displayed on the top tables. Its like cut game armada all the time. Which is not fun to watch or play.
  14. I am continually annoyed by the boring, spreadsheet efficient, tactically passive, list composition in most top competitive legion lists. There are some stand outs that break out of the mold and I admire them and hope they will continue to find success. We need ppl like them to break up the current snooze fest. Sadly and unimaginatively, the general formula for high level tournament success is really pretty simple if you look at the reports though. You must take your faction's best (aka most long range) troop option, and not just a few, you had better spam them hard. Most lists feature 5-6, Z-6 Troopers or DLT Troopers, then to further pad your activation advantage you have built by spamming efficient troop choices, you then spam your faction's sniper teams. So now that you have filled out your obligatory 8-9 units, you then actually consider what units you like to use, or think have tactical wrinkles worth considering. What you don't see much of are units that exceed the 70 point range, anything above that is hard to justify when you factor in the loss of activations it represents, such a unit must offer something amazing to warrant its inclusion. People say vehicles are bad in legion, why is that? Because not only do they not score in every mission, but they also fall short of this 70 point or less bench mark of inclusion, and can not normally be justified as one of your above 70 point splurge units... The end result is a bunch of lists that look basically the same, and fight basically the same, and typically not in a very dynamic or tactically deep/challenging way. They all excel in attrition fights because as enemy units attempt to close, they must spend actions to move instead of taking other beneficial actions like Aim, Dodge, etc. All other things being equal, the army that gets to take aim or dodge actions instead of moving will out perform an army that does. An army with equal range and more activations will end up getting more shots on their opponent as they wait the other side out and hit them once they have moved into range. This issue only gets worse when you factor in suppression. An army with more units can create more suppression ( thus incentivizing activations even more). We all also see the massive advantage of having more units/activations when setting up a Last/First attack or covering objectives once the enemy no longer can react due to being out activated. The cover system is admittedly designed to encourage larger dice pools, but when crits get around this limitation and ALL missions are objective based, it is nowhere near enough to limit whole sale spreadsheet efficiency spam across both factions. As with basically any alternate activation game, having more activations is advantageous. That is why we have the meta we currently do, a never ending parade of blah armies running the same 4-5 units over and over. Legion needs missions that award points for killing units. 40k is a simplistic, shadow of the tactical depth legion has to offer but they do get one thing right, to counter the overwhelming strength of MSU style lists in objective based games, kill point missions are also included in tournament packets. This introduces risk to MSU players for spamming units. Imagine the list design space that opens up if players could include a mission in their battle deck that awards 1 VP for each enemy unit killed? Or even better, if in addition to the VP's earned from holding objectives, you earned 1 VP for every 3 units destroyed. We would see people reconsidering the ubiquitous sniper teams for sure. Also there would be less pressure on each unit in your list to conform to the 70 or under template. Tough, hard hitting units become less of a liability and more of a factor in list design. As it stands I am just not impressed or interested in going to large events and playing against people who seek to create a stand off situation and create just enough of an edge to force the other side to push forward, thereby exposing themselves to the attrition mismatch I outlined above. The game is not 3 months old any more, all lists should not look the exact same... Put down your calculators and actually play the game, don't just tie the mission and win my killing 1 unit and hiding all game.
  15. I would like to play, NA Varsity, if its not to late. Am I to late?
×
×
  • Create New...