On 4/7/2019 at 5:33 PM, ScummyRebel said:I don’t think it has to be bigger. 800 points can still take a while.
I will be trying the official 2vs2 team game format next month - each player has 600 points so 1200 vs 1200
What rules are you using for the 2v2 team game? I would love to see those!
34 minutes ago, rasmussen81 said:What rules are you using for the 2v2 team game? I would love to see those!
Page 64 of the rules reference guide, called “team battle” under the optional rules.
8 hours ago, arnoldrew said:Sounds like a miserable slog.
Sounds like you've never played 40K Apoc!
On 4/6/2019 at 12:02 AM, R3dReVenge said:Maybe up to 1,000?
I think the issue is the game itself is too new. Since it's overtly pushed as being for 800 or 1600 point Grand Army games, it's not like FFG doesn't want anyone playing bigger. But too few people have 1,600 points painted up, and too few people have been playing long/often enough to be getting bored with 800 point games, for Grand Army games to be commonly played. 40k didn't always use as many figures as you are familiar with but it always used the same number of points. They just inched the points values down every edition, with one precipitous drop happening from 2nd to 3rd when the points values were cut roughly in half across the board. But 1,000 and 2,000 point games were always advertised as the norm. It took over a decade for 40k to approach the physical size of games you're currently familiar with, when 3rd edition in 1998 suddenly doubled army sizes across the board. Then another 20 years or so of 10% increases here and there.
So as far as a culture shift to bigger games, I think it will be top-down, with FFG putting out Grand Army campaigns, organized play materials, etc. It's not about changing the number of points. Generally speaking, the people who do have the money for 1600 points don't have the time for them and vice versa. If anything right now, official support is pushing SMALLER games with 300 points or so. I'd guess Grand Army normalcy is a ways off, but they have provided you a mechanic to play big games if you want.
Edited by TauntaunScoutOn 4/9/2019 at 3:52 PM, arnoldrew said:Wait, what? That's called "playing 3 games at once", not a 4800 point game.
"From a certain point of view."
The game simulates one large battle, and overall victory will be given to one one side or the other. Players will have to make choices about pursuing objectives that help their team mates on other tables or focus on their own table.
Conceptually it's not that different than two commanders on one table managing a few clusters of firefights separated by terrain and objective focus. Here we're playing with that concept and isolating sets of units to given tables allowing practical parallel play.
I don't see any need.
If you want to play bigger games - you and a friend set those limits. But why do you have to mess with the organization that's been established already? The designers have actually spent some time trying to keep things interesting and balanced at the same time from the get-go. I enjoy the game. They will hopefully continue to strive to keep that balance as they introduce new factions and units. I'd rather they focus on that rather than try to turn the game upside down for no finite gain.
1 hour ago, buckero0 said:I don't see any need.
If you want to play bigger games - you and a friend set those limits. But why do you have to mess with the organization that's been established already? The designers have actually spent some time trying to keep things interesting and balanced at the same time from the get-go. I enjoy the game. They will hopefully continue to strive to keep that balance as they introduce new factions and units. I'd rather they focus on that rather than try to turn the game upside down for no finite gain.
To allow for more points, so I can field a larger army. Right now, I think 1,000 seems like a good number to work with.
Currently, armies seem to small. This takes away from the epicness of the game.
Also, a lot of SW iconic units tend to be missing in games. Do you ever see Vader? Or an ATST? Maybe increasing the point cap could allow for some of these underplayed units to it the board.
2 hours ago, CaptainRocket said:"From a certain point of view."
The game simulates one large battle, and overall victory will be given to one one side or the other. Players will have to make choices about pursuing objectives that help their team mates on other tables or focus on their own table.
Conceptually it's not that different than two commanders on one table managing a few clusters of firefights separated by terrain and objective focus. Here we're playing with that concept and isolating sets of units to given tables allowing practical parallel play.
It's a cool idea, I'm not arguing that. I'm just nitpicking your choice to imply it's one huge 4800-point battle.
6 minutes ago, R3dReVenge said:Also, a lot of SW iconic units tend to be missing in games. Do you ever see Vader? Or an ATST? Maybe increasing the point cap could allow for some of these underplayed units to it the board
I can guarantee you that no matter how much you increase the point cap, you aren't going to see Vader competitively beyond some gimmick list with Vader, Palp, and max IRG.
Just now, thepopemobile100 said:I can guarantee you that no matter how much you increase the point cap, you aren't going to see Vader competitively beyond some gimmick list with Vader, Palp, and max IRG.
You can speculate, but not guarantee.
You'd be surprised how the meta can shift if players are given more points for the standard game.
All of a sudden, an ATST fits in nicely and players can no longer sniper spam....
7 minutes ago, R3dReVenge said:You can speculate, but not guarantee.
You'd be surprised how the meta can shift if players are given more points for the standard game.
All of a sudden, an ATST fits in nicely and players can no longer sniper spam....
In this specific instance, I can do exactly that: Increasing the point cap will not improve the viability of Vader.
His command cards aren't bad, but there are commanders who do the same thing better. Krennic's 3 pip is better than Vader's, even if it causes suppression among your own troopers. Palp's Pulling the Strings has a similar function to Vader's 2 pip, but allows the unit to attack twice and doesn't injure them in the process. Palp's 1 pip is a straight upgrade to Vader's. Even Palp's 2 pip is arguably better than Vader's 3 pip since it can be used at any range.
His damage is great in melee range, but bad outside of it even with saber throw. Heck just use 2 IRG if you want a melee unit. They're cheaper and have great utility, but lack pierce.
Even upgrades won't fix him because it would have to be better for Vader than Palpatine, but the latter is already really good. Which is really the hurdle that Vader needs to cross, because at this point he's a second rate Palpaine that's effectively the same price.
2 hours ago, R3dReVenge said:You can speculate, but not guarantee.
You'd be surprised how the meta can shift if players are given more points for the standard game.
All of a sudden, an ATST fits in nicely and players can no longer sniper spam....
There is a bigger option that is supported. Play Grand Army.
This 1,000 point thing has been discussed in detail in old threads if you want to go digging.
If you want to mix up your personal group’s meta, swear off unpainted models. You’d be amazed what it does. Vader is free with a core set and easy to paint. He’ll get used.
Edited by TauntaunScout15 hours ago, R3dReVenge said:To allow for more points, so I can field a larger army. Right now, I think 1,000 seems like a good number to work with.
Currently, armies seem to small. This takes away from the epicness of the game.
Also, a lot of SW iconic units tend to be missing in games. Do you ever see Vader? Or an ATST? Maybe increasing the point cap could allow for some of these underplayed units to it the board.
The problem I see is that players will just max out activations with cheaper units instead.
Instead of 10-12 units, we'll get 13-15.
20 minutes ago, lologrelol said:The problem I see is that players will just max out activations with cheaper units instead.
Instead of 10-12 units, we'll get 13-15.
This has been discussed in at least one other thread. People have tried it and reported back. I don't see what's stopping the OP from playing 1,000 point games and reporting back.
If you don't like the fact that Vader isn't as competitive as Palpatine, I offer an alternative path. Paint everything you use (the games will indeed seem more "epic"* when everything looks nice) and when you come up against a minmaxed list dare to lose. Winning is not worth wearing the proverbial the pocket protectors, for me.
This is a really strange endeavor to be competitive at. An athletic kid may as well try to get recruited for college skateboarding or karate instead of college basketball/football/baseball. I mean you COULD do that but, it's not an overall efficient use of one's efforts.
If you like Vader, play Vader. If you want "epic" feeling games, paint your guys, use nice scenery, and try some Grand Army games. Or Gran Army. General Ree Yees for the win!
*Personally I don't want my games to feel like 200 page poems but to each their own!
Edited by TauntaunScoutNo its more like we are all pro athletes, and some of us just don't want to have to resort to doping to win at the sport.
That's what max activations feels like, using a gimmick for an advantage.
1 hour ago, lologrelol said:No its more like we are all pro athletes, and some of us just don't want to have to resort to doping to win at the sport.
That's what max activations feels like, using a gimmick for an advantage.
As opposed to using unit special rules to win, each of which fits nicely under the definition of "gimmick?" Army building is all about trying to build an army that in some way gives you an edge so you can win. Doping is more akin to shaving your dice so they're more likely to come up as crits/blocks, spam lists still loose quite frequently.
As for Legion not feeling "epic": the scale and battlefield size aren't really right for an epic feeling game to me. Epic would be big armies of 15mm infantry and vehicles facing off on this size of board, not almost a reinforced platoon of 32mm infantry and vehicle support. Legion is more of a skirmish than an actual battle.
1 hour ago, Caimheul1313 said:As opposed to using unit special rules to win, each of which fits nicely under the definition of "gimmick?" Army building is all about trying to build an army that in some way gives you an edge so you can win. Doping is more akin to shaving your dice so they're more likely to come up as crits/blocks, spam lists still loose quite frequently.
As for Legion not feeling "epic": the scale and battlefield size aren't really right for an epic feeling game to me. Epic would be big armies of 15mm infantry and vehicles facing off on this size of board, not almost a reinforced platoon of 32mm infantry and vehicle support. Legion is more of a skirmish than an actual battle.
Battles in real life use far more people than tabletop battles use models of people. This is an inescapable reality. In tabletop we call a fight of 12 men per side a skirmish, a skirmish of 100 men per side a battle, and a battle of 10,000 men per side never happens.
One of the great things about Oldhammer was its convention/abstraction for this. 1 figure represented 10. This let us use cool looking bigger scale figures, but the rules were written assuming that, nonsensical as it was for 10 men to form ranks and wheel around, it made sense for 100 to do so. Even a powerful hero who by all rights should be dead meat if they tried flanking a group of people alone, was deemed to represent the hero themselves plus a handful of bodyguards, messengers, etc. so several combatants couldn't just immediately get behind him and clunk him on the head.
It was a nice way to use cool DnD-style minis while essentially manouvering Kriegspiel-style "blocks of wood" around the way big regiments would move in the pre-radio days. Without having to paint several regiments of 250 or so figures each!
Personally I think army building is the wrong step in the process to try to gain any serious advantage. It's about fitting your collection into the rules, trying to take a mix of tools for different jobs, and that's about it. I'm not going to worry about if it would be "better" to take 3 machine guns and 1 mortar instead of 2 of each. That way lies much human unhappiness. Not botherthing with so-called Mathhammer, and requiring painting, simulates the reality of "going to war with the army you have, not the army you want". If it wasn't going to be at least partly a simulation, and partly an RPG, I'd just play SW toys with my kids. Or play chess.
This category of game exists at a very inefficient crossroads of various human endeavors. It is really not the best way to play a game, or the best way to collect and/or make cool toys, or the best way to tell a story, or the best way to be a competitor. It's an inefficient approach to all of those things, but about the only activity that allows us to pursue all of them at once.
Edited by TauntaunScout@TauntaunScout Allow me to amend my statement: competitive army building's main facet is trying to build an army that through interaction of rules in some way increases your perception of your ability to win.
There's two main approaches to army building in my opinion: the "roleplay"/collector approach you espouse in your previous comment (which I have done more than once) and the "find a gimmick and use it" mindset.
Army building is a very good place to start looking for advantages. If you know the local meta doesn't involve Impact weapons, taking a Flamethrower AT-RT gives you an advantage. Taking Jyn and two units of Pathfinders to make use of Infiltrate so you can gain an advantage in deployment. Is another example. Any units added for a particular strategy rather than "because I own it" is being added for some perceived advantage that makes them better than another choice, even if that advantage is just "seeing it on the table makes me happy."
My approach to starting a new army in most games is to sit down with the rules and then make an army list before buying a single model. Now I don't always pick only the "best" units (I didn't care if the unit was good, or not, I wanted a Staghound in my British Bolt Action army so I put in a Staghound), but I do try to make the list such that it has at least some perceived strengths to counter and perceived weaknesses. While I don't really care if I win so long as I have an enjoyable game, I want it to at least be a close game, not a squash match. This allows me to limit my purchases to a legal army which I can then use to play and better learn the game. I don't make any changes to the list until I've played a bunch of matches, so I better know if the unit underperformed because of bad dice, or if the unit is just not suited to my play style. Even then, I'll typically only swap out the unit in my "competitive" lists, any that are purely for fun typically only see minor changes unless I'm not enjoying playing because of the army (which can include removing "overpowered" units).
The reality of "going to war with the army you have" is already broken by the points limits and force organization charts artificially imposed on units and "armies." Granted, force organization charts for historical games are often less artificial, but that's not really the case in my opinion for any fictional settings, like Star Wars. Truly capturing that feel would entail allowing anyone to bring any number of points so long as they were painted, so prodigious painters could be fielding 2000+ point armies while others would be scraping to reach 800.