|
Post by Jack Shrapnel on Jan 22, 2015 12:06:17 GMT -5
I realize that Warmachine uses deathclocks as per standard, however 40k is a very different game. Deathclocks would be extremely punishing to anyone who plays a horde army, while netlist deathstars get all the advantage (even more than they already have!)
I would never support the use of deathclock in 40k.
|
|
|
Post by timzeentch on Jan 22, 2015 13:01:06 GMT -5
The issue I keep coming to is what happens when a shooty army hits an assault army. If I'm the assault army my turn one is about 2 minutes, then my turns after that involve being in the assault phase (if all goes well of course). Assault happens on both player's turns, but one player still wants to do a lot in the shooting phase and the other player's army is eating their time. The answer here is to flip your clock to the other person when they are doing their assault moves. Just because it's your turn, doesn't mean you have to always use your own clock. We do the same thing in warmachine when someone is marking damage at the very end of the game when you're starving for clock. Shannon, I understand that the games are very different, but it does solve your issue with people taking too much time on their turns. It disadvantages horde armies as much as not using clock benefits them. It disadvantages psycher armies just like not using clock advantages them. Like I said, this was just a suggestion from an outsider looking in. It may be one of those things you may have to try during your regular game nights and see if it works before doing it in a tournament. We've been doing it on our regular nights and are now able to get multiple game in a night. I will now leave quietly. lol
|
|
|
Post by thesanityassassin on Jan 22, 2015 13:17:44 GMT -5
Warmachine lends itself perfectly to a timed system because the inactive player is almost never rolling dice or doing anything. 40k runs in to trouble because the inactive player is almost always involved in some way, rolling saves, or fighting back, or making fallback moves. A Deathclock seems like a great idea, but it's just too hard to insert in to a game where the other player can use "your" time.
I would also like to echo Tom's question as well. It's something we've talked about a number of times, and I'm really feeling stuck this year in terms of which direction to take my list. Honestly, it's probably going to end up quite hard, and I don't know what I feel about it. I can certainly play to win, and probably enjoy myself, but I don't feel particularly inclined to ruin someone else's fun.
|
|
|
Post by Jack Shrapnel on Jan 22, 2015 14:32:49 GMT -5
To address some of these multiple posts: I asked... and asked... and asked... no one brought up any of this stuff. lol... you guys trying to give me heart failure over this tourney? Tournaments are important to me, and of particular importance (as many have noted by the way I run tournies which is normally NOT how other places do it re: prize support etc.) is the enjoyment of the majority of attendees. I'm friends with many of the people who hit the top spots at our local tournies... to be honest, I don't care about them (sorry guys!) as much as the other 90% of attendees. know why? our "competitive crowd" isn't enough people to run a tourney. I remember a time when we couldn't hold local 40k tournies because we couldn't get people to even come out (while fantasy, a highly comped system, with less netlisting was full - even though we all knew Frank was going to kick our asses ) I don't want to see a return to empty tables and people not coming out. Know why people stop playing a game? when it stops being fun. Is it my job to ensure you have fun? thankfully no, it'd be slightly impossible. Can I try my best to encourage it? yes, I can try my best... and that truly is my goal... (even if sometimes people seem to get the impression I'm stomping all over their version of fun) Here's the problem. The real problem. For a long time now we've all been having alot of fun, bringing whatever cool ideas we want, often fluffy inclusions etc. We as a community have policed ourselves into a friendly environment where the netlists are not present and the top ten of our tournies are not all some brand of Eldar (my apologies to the pointy hats out there, but your book ain't balanced if you wanna really want to build an abusive list) Last year, at this one tourney, a couple people showed up with hard netlists and went all stompy over our brand of fun. And now we fear the latest boogey man - the imperial knight, as we know locally and elsewhere these things are started to stomp (literally) all over everyone. Suddenly we have to contend with netlists at our doorstep when we really didn't before, as we would actually just look at the person with a confused look and say "whoah you brought THAT? " and usually community shame would stop them...lol So know our more competitive club members are going "hey, why am I toning down MY lists if I'm just gonna get rolled by netlist X?" And thus begins the arms race...... am I guilty of it too? yup, you know it. Even with the weirdness I sometimes field on the table, in my heart I like to win too... and the close fought wins are the bestest... that one you just narrowly pull through at the last minute? yeah I fucking live for that shit. whoops sorry... got all angry marine there... So we ALL know the difference between a solid list and a min-maxed netlist. If you actually need to be told that your mirror image of the last GT winning list is a netlist you're lying to somebody buddy, us or yourself. Is there something wrong with netlists? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. There are times I look online and get inspired by something going "that would be REALLY FRIGGING COOL". Is it normally the cookie cutter high end tourney list? well no, but sometimes I steal good ideas from everyone... I'm an equal opportunity plagerist. If you built your list with the intention of bringing the hardest, min-maxed list you could squeeze out under the tourney rules, shaving every point, narrowing down everything into the most effecient killing machine in order to take whole the tourney you know you did it. Everyone who plays you knows you did this. May you win the tournament? yep, maybe. Will anyone have a good time playing you and getting their faces rubbed in the dirt? not likely. They also would like a CHANCE at winning. It's a two person game, and one person likes to feel like they're in it as well, not just pulling models off the table. So now we're worried about the tournies sliding into ultra-competative mode where people are going cutthroat and WAAC? If you guys want to do that, hell you're the attendees, I certainly can't tell you how to have fun. But maybe ask yourself if bringing said brutal list just means you're adding to the problem you said you didn't like? People are seriously considering deathclocks? Frig man, what's happening here? There's a reason I quit Warmahordes and won't ever touch the game again. There's a heart and soul to this game. You want to bring your most brutal lists and wreck face? You're sealing your own fate guys. Anytime you make your opponent have zero fun with their fluffy fun lists you lessen the chance they'll bring it again, even if they show up. I'm betting they won't even bother. want an example? Look at our signup this year compared to last year's 28 attendees? Now ask yourself what you are going to do to fix that? Are you going to create an environment where everyone gets to have fun at a hobby tourney where EVERYONE is encouraged to play and have a good time, or do a half dozen of you want to just play Ard Boyz? In the end, I'm just one gamer's opinion. When I started getting too competitive with this game (with my lofty travelling to play in "big tourneys" ideas) I realized it and started running the tournies for everyone else to play instead and I just played ringer if we were at odd numbers. I play on average 2-3 games of 40K a week and I really love this game. I just wanted to make sure I was part of the solution and not part of the problem.
|
|
|
Post by voodoo on Jan 22, 2015 16:08:15 GMT -5
Shannon, for the record I didn’t plan on winning any games this year, lol. Damn Sons… More to the point, well said. I can’t change my list at this point and wouldn’t given the opportunity to so I’m sure I’ll get my ass handed to me if I square off against 5 knights, or 3 for that matter. It might not matter though and here’s why…
The missions in the club championship are tough to plan for, if it was book scenarios I’m sure everyone facing knights would get torn a new one, heck you likely still will but but I’d like to see an army of 5 knights control a bunch of objectives as they NEVER get objective secured. There’s so many variables to the club championship missions by including certain units in your army, you may have just eliminated the ability of X% of your army to contribute to the primary objective.
Maybe we put in a price of failure on the missions that penalize you for losing your highest point objective secured unit to include a line saying that if you have no OS units you automatically get hit with that one. Sorry Connor but to pick on the 5 knights, you have a warlord but no objective secured so you’re “immune” to any mission with that price of failure in it. It’s something I didn’t think about until now, but it’s worth thinking about for certain.
|
|
|
Post by calitom on Jan 22, 2015 17:01:17 GMT -5
Good points Shannon, glad to see you're still on the same idea path.
Death clocks should never get any where near 40k- they aren't the same game and there is no way a death clock would be reasonable. You're asking us to change a rule we've held everyone to Jesse because you don't want to modify your lists that you use psychic powers on specifically and are even asking we add an entirely new thing to our gaming group just for you. I'm willing to try psychic dice not having a cap, but I won't do the clocks.
Understanding is that we don't have these house rules to specifically shit on certain people, we have them to ensure that everyone enjoys the game and use them as limiters to the unknowns that may be coming to our tournament from somewhere else, bringing entirely different styles of lists, etc.
|
|
|
Post by calitom on Jan 22, 2015 19:49:11 GMT -5
It's more trying to avoid the WAAC style of gaming that we ran into quite a bit in 5th edition and left a very sour taste in most of our mouths.
I'm willing to try the psychic dice change, though I think it's honestly opening a whole new can of worms we don't really need to open. Is your subpar psychic shooting really going to break the game? No. Are you going to avoid using those large amount of psychic dice on invisibility, iron arm, endurance, etc? Certainly not. It's trying to find the balance in limiting some of the rules that people immediately have these knee jerk reactions to so as to avoid having someone get sour about it immediately and not only ruin their time but they will be less inclined to enjoy themselves with their opponents.
Also I have never gone to time because of my pace of play, in fact I can generally get three 2k point value games completed in a 5 hour period if my opponent keeps up with my speed of play. I promise a death clock would do nothing but hurt my opponent so I don't want it around for that simple fact.
|
|
jesse
Scarab swarm
Posts: 41
|
Post by jesse on Jan 23, 2015 10:27:16 GMT -5
I'm surprised you're describing this as me trying to impose a death clock on you, this entire thread I've been asking for solutions to the issue of warp charge caps disproportionately affecting psykers armies, and time was the concern we keep hearing about. Either it is about time, and dice is already a pseudo timer for only one type of playstyle, or it isn't, and we need to start capping every aspect of play to make sure there aren't too many guns being fired, powers being cast, orders being given and what have you. If not, you're "balancing" the game to exclude entire armies someone doesnt like (read: armies the pros still beat with standard bike lists), you aren't playing a competitive game. Finally, while you can play a bunch of games in five hours, that doesn't mean that every army can. Going back to other tourneys, they run tourneys at 1850 or below and still only get four or so turns in. It's a large scale strategy game, not speed chess, but if you want to harp on not getting three turns, either tax everyone equally or not at all.
|
|
|
Post by Jack Shrapnel on Jan 23, 2015 13:51:54 GMT -5
yeah, death clock wasn't Jesse's idea...
time being a concern is my concern - ie: tournaments getting bogged down by summoning spam. I have a solution for that for next time that doesn't involve warp charge caps, but I have tinkered after the fact with the player pack enough for this tourney - I don't feel like pissing off anyone else! (as we have people submitting their lists and the deadline for early bird submission is next week!)
At any point on a Saturday Jesse, if you have a game with me, we can go full on no cap warp charge.
Also our tournament in March is "anything goes" so there is no warp charge cap for that one at all.
this discussion is resulting in further discussion and examining the tournies locally and looking to make a change with regards to this cap, so the idea is actually being considered quite seriously. The only actual tourney that's going to be affected is the one in February with the current cap... the one after is no cap... that will buy us the time needed to test out the very things you're saying and come to a fair and reasonable decision on the matter.
sound fair?
|
|
|
Post by calitom on Jan 23, 2015 13:58:46 GMT -5
Sounds good to me, I thought you had suggested the deathclock so apologize for that. Summoning specifically is why we set the cap and if we raise the cap I'd suggest some kind of limiter on the Summoning power in particular as that has it's own special way of bogging down the game unnecessarily.
|
|
jesse
Scarab swarm
Posts: 41
|
Post by jesse on Jan 23, 2015 15:50:32 GMT -5
No problem. Shannon I'll be in around 12:30 or so tomorrow. I'm more than happy to cap summoning to a single successful cast of a conjuration power per turn.
|
|
|
Post by Jack Shrapnel on Jan 23, 2015 16:23:06 GMT -5
sounds like a good test to see if that has the effect I was looking for.
and no matter what army I bring tomorrow, I'll ensure it's one with zero psykers (ie: not daemons/nids/smurfs)
|
|
|
Post by Silent one on Jan 26, 2015 13:15:50 GMT -5
I really have to agree with shannon in the post about compeative gamming. You make ALOT of good points.
|
|
|
Post by Hizack on Jan 26, 2015 15:24:12 GMT -5
I'll be honest, as a player of an Army with no psychic dice in it. Heavy psychic armies are very intimidating, like Grey Knights for example.
Their ability to get prescience and invisibility on many of their units which are both very potent buffs is pretty much guaranteed. Even if they're at the 12 dice cap, it is nigh on impossible for me to cancel any of their abilities or powers. I'm stuck spending all of the dice I'm given by the player generating to try and cancel one power which might work once in 20 times on the two dice spells. Having more dice just further compounds this issue for those of us who don't have any dice of our own.
Having the ability to give your units these strong buffs is nice but there is literally almost no way to play around this handicap of not having psychic dice against a strong psychic army. People can and regularly do play around my aircraft army. They're able to counter or minimize damage by play style, and maybe it's because I'm still growing as a player but I can not see any way to play around my opponent having 3 units with invisibility or having their heavy hitting units taking prescience or having both. There is no counter short of bringing psykers to try and neutralize that option which doesn't work for everyone.
As I said, having more psychic dice for an army skews it too far in favour of advantages towards the psychic army over the non psychic one with there being little counter play involved. I've also yet to see an army be negatively effected by the cap on psychic dice but maybe that's 'cause no one here plays a lot of pink horrors.
There's my two cents on the matter.
|
|
|
Post by Jack Shrapnel on Jan 26, 2015 16:32:01 GMT -5
see the battle report I did with Jessie - unlimited warp charge - at one point he had 17 dice to my 3.
Remember, last edition they could cast these powers too, and you couldn't stop any buffs before.
grey knights I believe can only get invisibility and prescience on their librarians... their normal psychic units can't take divination, they have set powers. So unless they have three librarians, I don't see how they're getting three invisible units.
|
|