> From: John A Chapman <jac_at_...>
>
> > > > Trolls and minotaurs are only 'cheap' compared to
> > > >beastmen, which are overpriced IMHO. Tarantulas are worth
>
> Rare that you can get 10 units for 250 points with 5 CAF (or is it 9
> and 1 with 4.........)
10 & 1 with +4.
> Not including Ogryns (which are also bargain basement
> stuff) what else is there that matches them in CC for the price? Termies are
> way too expensive
Termies can also shoot, are immune to morale and get
to ride around in really nice tanks. Pure CC troops with no
mobility and morale worse than 2 are cheap in this game,
presumably because they're not as useful as, say, devastators
(which eat CC troops for breakfast).
> (although charging a FF termie is probably worse than charging
> a troll - but heck my main problem is clearing them off objectives (a more
> relevant point later).Howling banshees lose their scream (gotta love the 6+
> save :) )
Striking Scorpians will still puree them. Banshees
are overrated anyway.
> and the extra 1 caf is probably outmatched by the extra numbers
> and (in the trolls case) regeneration. The trolls also cough up 1 fewer VPs
> than 2 dets of CC dudesa and only take up one support card as opposed to 2
> (ok though this means they cant be in 2 places at once........).
And they're also stupid, and next to useless if they
lose their champion. They have a morale of 4 to boot, so after
they've broken CC becomes a big risk unless they can see their
GD.
> I guess
> using chaos cards in conjunction with these units has been the worst problem -
> the cards having the net effect of being everywhere up until they are used (ie
> no matter who goes into CC and against which unit the cards have the potential
> to be there. In this case having one large unit is great cos all of it gets
> the bonus from the unit- affecting cards.
True, but there's always at least two cures for that -
stay outta CC with them, or shoot the heck out of the GDs (this
is something you have to start on early and keep up until the
sucker's down to his last few cards).
> Re the beastmen - compared to trolls + minotaurs either the beastmen are
> overpriced or the trolls are underpriced. Thats one major problem - what
> do you consider the 'correctly priced' unit to be?...(ie what do you
> compare things to in point values?)
That is a problem, probably one of the reasons why
the designers haven't tried to fix any of these pricing issues
(cause they'd have to go back and 'playtest' everything all
over again). But I look at it like this: 10 roughriders cost
150 points. 10 beastmen cost 200 points. Same CAF, same morale,
same lack of armor, but RR can shoot (hah!) and move twice as fast
(and in the IG scheme, the RR are independant while the beastmen
aren't). The only advantage the beastmen have is that they
can enter buildings. If the Beastmen are priced correctly,
than RRs should cost 250 points (I don't think so). More likely,
beastmen should cost 150 and RRs should cost 200.
> I think thats more an indictment on the battlegroups than anything else
> . I think it was AC that wanter mre titans - but not making them only dirt
> cheap but adding the objectives as well was overkill. I think the BG's
> deserved some cost break but not to the extent where single titans
> become a bad thing to buy.
I think they should have lowered the cost of Warlords
to 750 and stopped there. Have battlegroups with either no
cost break or a small one (maybe half the price of one titan).
Titan objectives? I'd like to know where that idea came from.
> > > I think he mentioned earlier in the message that the guy using Chaos was a
> > > pretty good player, and I think that makes far more difference overall then
> > > pure army type selection.
>
> It makes some difference - as does a willingness to concentrate only
> on certain units (often coming close to what would be termed 'degenerate'
> in CCG's....). Maybe its something about the house rules here (theres a few
> and we only play WYSIWYG to a limited extent (ie we like it but dont worry
> if theres a few proxy models used) but chaos is on a pretty good run. The chaos
> player probably runs on a 75-80% win percentage - however we play 'reversal'
> matches where we swap armies frequently. In these games he has only won about
> 30-40%. So its not that he's playing an army he's not used to (the other
> player has the same problem) but it seems that chaos - seems to do really well
> here.(note that this means he's still doing pretty well considering - ie better
> than most of us :) )aBasically its both the army AND the player is what im
> trying to get at..........combine them both and OWWWWW.
The chaos army must just match his playing style. The
other armies are pretty differeent from it, which could explain
why he doesn't win with them so much. *shrug*
Scott
shupes_at_...
Received on Thu Jan 30 1997 - 15:48:57 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Tue Oct 22 2019 - 13:09:04 UTC