|
Post by timsnoddy on Mar 28, 2012 11:37:10 GMT -5
Yes I am listening . Thanks for these considerations on the stats. I have been working through the points again and hopefully taking most of these thoughts into account. Most of problem stems from the fact that I wanted units to cost a points factor of 8 through to a maximum of 50. This was aimed at delivering a very quick and easy system with low numbers for ease of setup, rather than the usual SCI-FI games where armies might be counted in the 1000's of points. However this has resulted in some issues where the differential is very low for some stats, so it feels like there is no benefit to taking a lower stat, especially where rounding breaks the math. So hopefully the newer updated points will address this by making a bigger difference to the incremental steps for each stat. It won't be perfect but hopefully closer to being balanced. Robin are the points in the post re the new specialists rules final? If so you seem to be sticking with a single point differential for each point of shoot. This provides absolutely no incentive for picking lower statted units and will not balance armies of high stat troops and low stat troops.
|
|
|
Post by kerrygray8 on Mar 28, 2012 14:26:32 GMT -5
I agree that a certain amount of self-discipline / fair-mindedness (call it what you will) is probably required when using the unit builders, to avoid too much min/maxing or powergaming.
FWIW - the first two units I statted up were Human 'Regulars' and Human 'Marines', with stats based largely on the semantics used to describe the stats (Trained, Seasoned, etc). This gave me:
Regulars: Shoot 4; Assault 3; Guard 11; Soak 12; Mental 6; Skill 3 Projectile Rifle, Knife, AP Grenades
Marines: Shoot 5; Assault 4; Guard 12; Soak 12; Mental 7; Skill 3 'Assault rifle' (Laser Rifle), Knife, AP Grenades
I then statted up 'everything else' - Orks, Space Demons, Grey Aliens, mixed-race Mercenaries, etc - on the basis of being similar, a bit better or much better than their Human counterparts.
Of course, I only have one regular Gruntz opponent and he has also bought into this 'conservative' approach so our games are nicely balanced. My poor Regulars might not fare so well against some of the uber-statted Human units that could be created! ;D
|
|
|
Post by timsnoddy on Mar 29, 2012 11:41:49 GMT -5
I hope Robin will confirm or deny the points values as seen. If they are kept this way I fear it will put people off the game. Not much fun to keep getting beaten just because your opponent has better value for money in his troops as they have higher stats. No points system can be perfect but there is no point in having a points system at all if it does not come close to balancing opposing forces.
|
|
|
Post by comstar on Mar 29, 2012 13:35:10 GMT -5
The point system is being worked on by Robin and will reflex a better bell curve for points vs stats
|
|
|
Post by timsnoddy on Mar 29, 2012 14:37:41 GMT -5
The point system is being worked on by Robin and will reflex a better bell curve for points vs stats Woohoo!
|
|
|
Post by fjodin on Mar 29, 2012 17:28:29 GMT -5
By the way if My unit have shot of 4 and it fire at Long Range at unit with guard of 13 (and Long Range shots have -4 penaltry), that means I need to roll 13 with 2d6. But this is impossible. Rules tell yu that dougle 6 is always hit, so does that mean even shoter with shoot of 3 can hit an enemy with guard of 13 at long range if he rolls double 6?
|
|
|
Post by comstar on Mar 29, 2012 18:10:22 GMT -5
Yes, but I always don't allow the damage re-roll as I don't see this a critical but yes you can always hit a target with a double 6 and always miss on a double 1!
|
|
|
Post by fjodin on Mar 30, 2012 18:14:08 GMT -5
Thanx for reply. I think double 6 a hit is a realistic situation. Because in real live even rotten shoters with Shoot 2 can theoreticaly hit a target at long range in light cover (Guard 13), but the chances are low.
|
|