 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
Derling
Administrator
| Joined: | Wed Apr 6th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1445 |
| 40k Armies played: | Tau, Space Marines, Space Wolves, Imperial Guard, Eldar, Tyranids, Orkses |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
|
Posted: Tue Dec 23rd, 2008 05:21 pm |
|
Hey all,
I'm just throwing this out there as a suggestion.
With the lack of ForceOrg(and probably Kill points) that result in Apoc-style games, a common thing to do in army lists is to drop units and vehicle squadrons to a WHOLE LOTTA small one model units, as there are some advantages to composing units like this (and the disadvantages for these mostly dissappear with the ommision of those rules mentioend above).
I was wondering if we as a group wanted to make an effort Not to go gung-ho crazy on making sure every Obliterator/Crisis suit/Landspeeder/Sentinel/War Buggie/DethKopta/Broadside/Piranha/Attack Bike/Killa Kan/etc... was it's own single unit.
It makes makes it easier to keep track of things when they're lumped together, so personally, I wouldn't mind seeing the good peeps model their armies into fuller units than a thousand Armies of One.
With my Tau suits and light skimmers, I can probably put out 30-40 one model units if I like, so I can play either way. I'm not looking to present a Hard and fast rule so much as trying to gather how most of us would like to see I just want to know what people think. If most people want to keep on trucking with a million one man units and min sized squads...I can be happy with that too. It's just a suggestion
____________________
There are two things I know to be true. There's no difference between good flan and bad flan, and there is no war.
|
Pen dull
Super Moderator
| Joined: | Wed Apr 13th, 2005 |
| Location: | Madison, Wisconsin USA |
| Posts: | 1896 |
| 40k Armies played: | 12+k Orks 2+k Marines 1k Eldar. |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Dec 23rd, 2008 06:23 pm |
|
I agree. I think the person who lumps-em plays in a more fair fashion than the player who doesn't.
This could be addressed in an army-wide composition ethic. Possibly, if a single model can be made into a squadron, it must.
Or rather, after normal force org is reached, each unit past the normal force-org that is chosen must be made into a squadron if possible.
I dunno. Hard to do this without being heavy-handed.
____________________
"How is that even possible?!?"- Milkman
"Everybody can take all summer to build one flyer a piece.... Bam instant flying retard fest." - joe
"When you die, I'm gonna cry a little." - Derling
|
Major_Slovak
Super Moderator
| Joined: | Wed Aug 3rd, 2005 |
| Location: | Zombie |
| Posts: | 1068 |
| 40k Armies played: | non-Imperial imperial guard, weird orks |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Dec 23rd, 2008 06:37 pm |
|
I agree about the squadrons, easy enough to ask compliance on and keeps the game moving (critical issue #1).
On your point about min/maxed squads, which is in the subtext for this question -do you go further then and say that all squads have to be purchased at their maximum size as well?
This wouldn't stop marine players from breaking those units down that can do so, but would be a mixed bag for everyone else. Not bad necessarily. . . if applied to everyone.
____________________
"These fragments I have shored against my ruin." Eliot
|
Derling
Administrator
| Joined: | Wed Apr 6th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1445 |
| 40k Armies played: | Tau, Space Marines, Space Wolves, Imperial Guard, Eldar, Tyranids, Orkses |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Dec 23rd, 2008 06:47 pm |
|
Major_Slovak wrote: I agree about the squadrons, easy enough to ask compliance on and keeps the game moving (critical issue #1).
On your point about min/maxed squads, which is in the subtext for this question -do you go further then and say that all squads have to be purchased at their maximum size as well?
This wouldn't stop marine players from breaking those units down that can do so, but would be a mixed bag for everyone else. Not bad necessarily. . . if applied to everyone.
Great question(in 2nd Paragragh)....I think I shouldn't have added that to the question, as the single man squadrons is really what I was focussed on. It was included because I tend to field most Tau infantry in Min-Sized squads(3 man stealth suits, 6 man troop units) , which isn't terribly broken....but probably unwieldly to play with in a 2 day drunken gaming binge. Not sure how much I'd want to enforce this, if at all.
I'm not even really aiming for rock solid rules moreso than a gentlemanly concensus to minimize throwing around tiny expendable units in an Apocolyptic style game. We can all do it, but the more each of us minimizes how much we do it, the more the game becomes a game of epic proportions and less a "really big" game of tiny units....if that makes sense.
____________________
There are two things I know to be true. There's no difference between good flan and bad flan, and there is no war.
|
Wolf Man
Member
| Joined: | Wed Apr 27th, 2005 |
| Location: | Sector Obscurus, Maryland USA |
| Posts: | 3057 |
| 40k Armies played: | Space Wolves - all other armies are for support |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Dec 23rd, 2008 07:58 pm |
|
That's a really good idea when throwing out the Force Org. Chart.
I will frequently bypass all other Fast Attack choices in order to take three Landspeeders that can all act - and more importantly be targeted - independently in a regular game.
I can't imagine the difficulties someone would have staring down 12 independent Landspeeders that come rushing up on something.
And I'm sure someone here has 12 Landspeeders. 
____________________
With these paws, I thee type, for Russ.
|
crterry
Member
| Joined: | Thu Apr 14th, 2005 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 1160 |
| 40k Armies played: | Deathwing, Ravenwing, Salamanders, and Witchhunters |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Dec 23rd, 2008 09:26 pm |
|
Yep, I do.
How do you handle the ravenwing under this policy?
Each ravenwing squadron is made up of two combat squads of bikes, a single attack bike and a speeder.
The attack bike and the speeder are a seperate, independent units,but are bought as part of a larger ravenwing squadron for each troop choice.
CT
____________________
D-Company: Drinkers who game, not gamers who drink!
|
Derling
Administrator
| Joined: | Wed Apr 6th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1445 |
| 40k Armies played: | Tau, Space Marines, Space Wolves, Imperial Guard, Eldar, Tyranids, Orkses |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Dec 24th, 2008 01:53 am |
|
crterry wrote: How do you handle the ravenwing under this policy?
Each ravenwing squadron is made up of two combat squads of bikes, a single attack bike and a speeder.
The attack bike and the speeder are a seperate, independent units,but are bought as part of a larger ravenwing squadron for each troop choice.
I had already thought of the RavenWing this morning before I had posted. Great catch tho. 
I personally think that you only form single models into squadrons where the rules normally permit it... So Ravenwing would actually operate normally because there would be no other way to play them. They come out as single units. you have to buy enough up front that I imagine we won't see high numbers of people giving up their "New Car smell" Marine codex just to get a few solo landspeeders and attack bikes.
that's my thoughts on it anyway. Do the best with the rules you have. Does that make sense?
____________________
There are two things I know to be true. There's no difference between good flan and bad flan, and there is no war.
|
crterry
Member
| Joined: | Thu Apr 14th, 2005 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 1160 |
| 40k Armies played: | Deathwing, Ravenwing, Salamanders, and Witchhunters |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Dec 24th, 2008 03:40 am |
|
Rules like this only work when they can be universally applied.
Exceptions lead to more exceptions.
"But this sentinel is attached to the command platoon......"
____________________
D-Company: Drinkers who game, not gamers who drink!
|
Major_Slovak
Super Moderator
| Joined: | Wed Aug 3rd, 2005 |
| Location: | Zombie |
| Posts: | 1068 |
| 40k Armies played: | non-Imperial imperial guard, weird orks |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Dec 24th, 2008 04:00 pm |
|
crterry wrote: Rules like this only work when they can be universally applied.
Exceptions lead to more exceptions.
True.
But we're D Company, and we're talking about the Annual D Company Big Game. Not some bullshit 1750 point RTT that for an entry fee of $12 you get two slices of cold pizza and four games against a bunch of snivs with unpainted power lists.
Having planned and organized a couple Big Games in the past myself, I have always thought that one of the places where we have fallen apart as an organization planning these events in the past is to treat the design of the Big Game, in rules and over the top concept, as some sort of meta-contest that can be won or lost.
I think that we have failed miserably in the past to take our primary strength as a gaming group (besides our overall drinking stamina and two-fisted jackassery- those seem to be our primary strengths overall, but more as a drinking group) into account when it comes to the Big Game- that we aren't a bunch of whiney cheaters who want to twist the rules to gain some slight advantage.
And having to word and re-word the rules to try to account for a hypothetical power douche who is going to monkey-stomp all the rest of us when we all showed up for two days of light-hearted fun just isn't applicable.
Don't get me wrong- there isn't a single person in D Company that isn't perfectly capable of being a huge DICK in the right circumstances (just ask the lady at the drive-through teller window at my credit union in West Philadelphia). But I will argue that it isn't our natural tendency, as individuals or as a group, to show up at the Big Game hoping to take advantage of the event to piss in the corners of the room, and to plan this event as though we are is really kind of a dead end.
Not so for the tournaments and any other public events we have run in the past-- I think we need to plan for the worst in those cases. But for the Big Game specifically personally I would like to see us adopt a more "gentlemens rules" approach to planning- - where the rules are discussed and agreed upon under the general direction of the person leading the design, Braden this year, who writes down the story and rules and lists and FAQ, whatever; but that we all basically discuss and then agree to agree on his final ruling.
And that anybody after that point where the rules have been set who wants to 'break' the game, i.e., violate the principles of what has been laid out rule-wise to facilitate such an ambitious endeavour will do so at their own risk, because the game design person (Braden) has the final say all the way through the actual event itself. And that anybody who has had the opportunity to ask if something is cool or not and doesn't and then shows up and fucks up the event (at Bradens discretion) will have to deal with an appropriate response from the event itself; and may find that they've deployed in an area that has been targeted for continuous orbital bombardment or something equally amusing to make sure that the game goes on. Without that part of their army that is fucking up the spirit of the rules and, by proxy, the event itself.
Again- anyone who has played in Big Games in the past will probably agree that the biggest concern is flow. The game is made or broken by the moving along at a pace that allows us to play the whole battle out, and gives people a chance to put their best 5000 point list to the trials of a ridiculous weekend.
____________________
"These fragments I have shored against my ruin." Eliot
|
Brother Tiberius
Super Moderator
|
Posted: Wed Dec 24th, 2008 04:55 pm |
|
Major_Slovak wrote: crterry wrote: Rules like this only work when they can be universally applied.
Exceptions lead to more exceptions.
True.
But we're D Company, and we're talking about the Annual D Company Big Game. Not some bullshit 1750 point RTT that for an entry fee of $12 you get two slices of cold pizza and four games against a bunch of snivs with unpainted power lists.
Pete,
I have to observe that I'm a bit puzzled by what you are exactly getting at here. Are you arguing that we should just show up, have a good time, and understand that we are facing off against others with that simply have legal lists, or are you arguing that we are preparing for that eventualit plus whatever other restrictions Braden places on the game?
But hell yeah on the rah rah rah stuff for D Company.
Kurt
____________________
I prefer not to take my political advice from a guy that sounds like he should be pushing a fish cart...
D Company: Just when you think you've hit rock bottom, someone hands you a shovel...
|
Pen dull
Super Moderator
| Joined: | Wed Apr 13th, 2005 |
| Location: | Madison, Wisconsin USA |
| Posts: | 1896 |
| 40k Armies played: | 12+k Orks 2+k Marines 1k Eldar. |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Dec 24th, 2008 05:41 pm |
|
Major_Slovak wrote:
Again- anyone who has played in Big Games in the past will probably agree that the biggest concern is flow. The game is made or broken by the moving along at a pace that allows us to play the whole battle out, and gives people a chance to put their best 5000 point list to the trials of a ridiculous weekend.
QFT. Hear hear. Squad sizes should be encouraged, and then most people will follow in suit.
It will help flow, as having fewer squads means less "this guy will run...(roll) this guy will run...(roll) cocked die. (roll) this guy will run...(roll)" and more "you're squad of 20 just took 35 wounds. I guess I'll allow a cover save of 5+.
____________________
"How is that even possible?!?"- Milkman
"Everybody can take all summer to build one flyer a piece.... Bam instant flying retard fest." - joe
"When you die, I'm gonna cry a little." - Derling
|
Major_Slovak
Super Moderator
| Joined: | Wed Aug 3rd, 2005 |
| Location: | Zombie |
| Posts: | 1068 |
| 40k Armies played: | non-Imperial imperial guard, weird orks |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Dec 25th, 2008 03:04 am |
|
Brother Tiberius wrote: Are you arguing that we should just show up, have a good time, and understand that we are facing off against others with that simply have legal lists, or are you arguing that we are preparing for that eventualit plus whatever other restrictions Braden places on the game?
What I'm saying is that making rules for the Big Game in the past we've gotten too involved in running through every permutation we can think of about how one side is going to get the advantage because of x, y and z; or how if rule A is worded like this then armies with this other special rule can. . . blah blah blah.
But what we've overlooked in those discussions in the past is the spirit of the design of the Big Game is what is really important, because it's the spirit of the design that has to work hardest to accomplish the most difficult goal of all- to actually be able to play the fucking thing in the time allotted, and to make it fun.
5th edition 40k is designed and balanced to be played between 1000 and 2500 points. All of the codexs are designed and (more or less) balanced for games between 1000 and 2500 points. We break that every year when we try to re-write the rules for 5k lists.
I'm saying we find a way to agree on the spirit of the rules we want to play with, and we agree because the rules are pursuant to a central set of goals (get through the game with turns that are of reasonable length, and everybody gets all their models on the board before the weekend ends- that's a start) and then we lay out some general rules for how that needs to get done--- say by stating that there will be no min-maxed units, and that squadrons need to be full (for example). Sure there are going to be exceptions- as CT asks "what about Ravenwing?", or I might ask "does this mean that every Guard platoon has to be made up of a command squad and five infantry squads? isn't that fucking restrictive?" etc etc, but once we agree on the spirit of the rule rather than try to re-write the Big Game document until we cover every eventuality (which we have tried in the past, and it's pointless) we agree on general rules that are going to meet our goals.
Again, the goal- to get 12 to 24 grown men to play a game that's designed for 2-4 players, and each of the 16-odd guys (while drinking heavily) brings 5,000 points of models into a system that's designed for around 1850, and they play all their (thousands of) plastic and metal soldiers across 200 square feet of tables for a rule set designed to be played on a 4' x 6' ping-pong table.
That's the goal. It doesn't really matter who wins, because at some point the task completely abstracted. Someone will win, and we'll celebrate that (I hope that trophy I made is still around), but actually we all win if we can just accomplish the fucking game and have fun in the process.
That's no small goal.
____________________
"These fragments I have shored against my ruin." Eliot
|
Professor Chaos
Member
| Joined: | Wed Apr 6th, 2005 |
| Location: | Brewcity, Wisconsin USA |
| Posts: | 687 |
| 40k Armies played: | Chaos Space Marines, Chaos Deamons, Imperial Guard |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Dec 25th, 2008 03:03 pm |
|
Well, I'm taking 10-12 Greater deamons and Deamon Princes aligned with Wrailthlords and an Avatar (they went evil).
They should be sperate units, but I can join them together, Unless everyone really wants me spread the wounds to an entire squad of greater deamons and /or deamon Princes I'd be happy to oblige. 
____________________
"Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid." Han Solo
|
Brother Tiberius
Super Moderator
|
Posted: Thu Dec 25th, 2008 07:20 pm |
|
Major_Slovak wrote: Brother Tiberius wrote: Are you arguing that we should just show up, have a good time, and understand that we are facing off against others with that simply have legal lists, or are you arguing that we are preparing for that eventualit plus whatever other restrictions Braden places on the game?
What I'm saying is that making rules for the Big Game in the past we've gotten too involved in running through every permutation we can think of about how one side is going to get the advantage because of x, y and z; or how if rule A is worded like this then armies with this other special rule can. . . blah blah blah.
But what we've overlooked in those discussions in the past is the spirit of the design of the Big Game is what is really important, because it's the spirit of the design that has to work hardest to accomplish the most difficult goal of all- to actually be able to play the fucking thing in the time allotted, and to make it fun.
5th edition 40k is designed and balanced to be played between 1000 and 2500 points. All of the codexs are designed and (more or less) balanced for games between 1000 and 2500 points. We break that every year when we try to re-write the rules for 5k lists.
I'm saying we find a way to agree on the spirit of the rules we want to play with, and we agree because the rules are pursuant to a central set of goals (get through the game with turns that are of reasonable length, and everybody gets all their models on the board before the weekend ends- that's a start) and then we lay out some general rules for how that needs to get done--- say by stating that there will be no min-maxed units, and that squadrons need to be full (for example). Sure there are going to be exceptions- as CT asks "what about Ravenwing?", or I might ask "does this mean that every Guard platoon has to be made up of a command squad and five infantry squads? isn't that fucking restrictive?" etc etc, but once we agree on the spirit of the rule rather than try to re-write the Big Game document until we cover every eventuality (which we have tried in the past, and it's pointless) we agree on general rules that are going to meet our goals.
Again, the goal- to get 12 to 24 grown men to play a game that's designed for 2-4 players, and each of the 16-odd guys (while drinking heavily) brings 5,000 points of models into a system that's designed for around 1850, and they play all their (thousands of) plastic and metal soldiers across 200 square feet of tables for a rule set designed to be played on a 4' x 6' ping-pong table.
That's the goal. It doesn't really matter who wins, because at some point the task completely abstracted. Someone will win, and we'll celebrate that (I hope that trophy I made is still around), but actually we all win if we can just accomplish the fucking game and have fun in the process.
That's no small goal.
ok
____________________
I prefer not to take my political advice from a guy that sounds like he should be pushing a fish cart...
D Company: Just when you think you've hit rock bottom, someone hands you a shovel...
|
HDEagle71
Administrator
| Joined: | Wed Mar 30th, 2005 |
| Location: | Milwaukee, Wisconsin USA |
| Posts: | 1016 |
| 40k Armies played: | All of Chaos, Dark Eldar, Tau, Sisters, Orks |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Dec 25th, 2008 11:46 pm |
|
Derling wrote: Hey all,
I'm just throwing this out there as a suggestion.
With the lack of ForceOrg(and probably Kill points) that result in Apoc-style games, a common thing to do in army lists is to drop units and vehicle squadrons to a WHOLE LOTTA small one model units, as there are some advantages to composing units like this (and the disadvantages for these mostly dissappear with the ommision of those rules mentioend above).
What I think Derling is saying is that last year I broke all my oblits (8) of them into 1 man units.
Not that it mattered as I got creamed. Do what you want in the end it will not matter hehe. I will be bringing massive squads of Chaos to Destroy you all!!!!! Oh and Giant Demons go figure!
It's Apoc and I think that Bradon will make sure people trying to break his game will end up in a tough situation to balance it out anyway.
It's the big game FUCK IT hehehe
I am drunk Merry Christmas
____________________
My Armies are Not Cheesey But they Still Stink
The Admins Suck :-)
|
Brother Tiberius
Super Moderator
|
Posted: Fri Dec 26th, 2008 01:19 am |
|
HDEagle71 wrote:
I am drunk Merry Christmas
When are you sober?
____________________
I prefer not to take my political advice from a guy that sounds like he should be pushing a fish cart...
D Company: Just when you think you've hit rock bottom, someone hands you a shovel...
|
Derling
Administrator
| Joined: | Wed Apr 6th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1445 |
| 40k Armies played: | Tau, Space Marines, Space Wolves, Imperial Guard, Eldar, Tyranids, Orkses |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Dec 26th, 2008 03:06 am |
|
HDEagle71 wrote: What I think Derling is saying is that last year I broke all my oblits (8) of them into 1 man units.
That is a perfect example of what I'm trying to avoid. ...babysitting your drunk ass helping you "remember" which Oblits already fired this turn and which didn't....Then hearing you complain about how you forgot to roll for one of them on your reserve rolls.
It's just unnecesary to clog up the game micromanaging individual models if it doesn't need to be done if you could lump those same units into a single squad adhereing to the existing rules in your codex.
I am generally a bit confused by the conversation here. I'm am not suggesting implimenting ANY new rules. We shouldn't be forcing players to join their greater Deamons into 10-12 models packs (This is possibly/probably even illegal). Raven Wing shouldn't be forced to adopt formations not allowed by their codex because other Marine codices can field multiple model Landspeeder units.
I'm only suggesting that we try to minimize how much we segment out armies when in the "Codex In Hand" we can merge them into bigger fuller squads....as a general guideline for the sake of easier gameside management.
Last edited on Sat Dec 27th, 2008 12:32 am by Derling
____________________
There are two things I know to be true. There's no difference between good flan and bad flan, and there is no war.
|
twaimn
Super Moderator
| Joined: | Mon Apr 4th, 2005 |
| Location: | Milwaukee, USA |
| Posts: | 543 |
| 40k Armies played: | it's easier to ask what I don't play |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mon Dec 29th, 2008 08:59 pm |
|
models should be grouped into the fewest possible number of units, then?
like the chaos spawn in the chaos codex... you can take 3, but that's one unit, if you take 4, it's two units, cause the squad only goes up to three.
I agree no hard fast rule, but if you're showing up to big game with the mindset that 9 one man oblit squads (or whatever) is going to win it for you, but three 3 man squads is going to cost you the game, you're A) pointing a horrible list, and B) missing, as pete alluded to, the point of big game.
play nice, children.
____________________
Hank: Brock, if pirates really exist, I mean, Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy could even be real, right? It's like all bets are off!
Brock: Hank nobody ever said pirates don't exist.
Hank: So you agree with me that this is impossible.
|
Pen dull
Super Moderator
| Joined: | Wed Apr 13th, 2005 |
| Location: | Madison, Wisconsin USA |
| Posts: | 1896 |
| 40k Armies played: | 12+k Orks 2+k Marines 1k Eldar. |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Dec 30th, 2008 03:06 am |
|
I vote that we institute a universal "Mob Rule."
This mob rule is:
If you play like an ass, and everyone hates you, you'll most likely get your face stuck into a urine-soaked snowbank by the end of the night.
If you look in the rules I wrote up 2 years ago, I borrowed some line: Attempt to be cool.
I think most of us realize what that means, and can do so. Those that don't, well, feel free to bitch about them until they feel like shit.
____________________
"How is that even possible?!?"- Milkman
"Everybody can take all summer to build one flyer a piece.... Bam instant flying retard fest." - joe
"When you die, I'm gonna cry a little." - Derling
|
Current time is 03:52 am | |
|
|
|
|
