REVISED: Current PL, Points or Diff PL?

Which would you prefer?

  • Current PL system left alone

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • PL system still, but changed from what currently exists?

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Points system like used in other games?

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
Abraxas said:
Compare 2 ships. Grab another ship and compare it to one of the ships you picked before. Than compare it to the other. Play with stat-lines as you see fit to get a basic equivilance... and than grab another ship and compare it to the ships you have already done.

This method will lead to broken ships...You just CAN'T simply look at 2 ships at time when determining point values. That simply leads to broken ships.

That is an example of a failure in the system which can EASILY be fixed by reversing the values.

SImilar problems in PL system are easy to fix as well.

Which is why after you have compared 2 ships... you move onto another... and then another... and then another.

You...cannot...compare...ships...one...to...one...

Well not if you want any semblance of balance anyway. So your method doesn't work.
 
emperorpenguin said:
Was Gideon commanding an Explorer at that point?

Yeah, I believe he wasn't even a Captain during the Civil War, he was on board the Cerberus in 2259 when the Hunter blew it up. By ACtA the movie he was commanding an Explorer yes, but thats some eight years after. Which considering he was an Ensign on the Cerberus is a pretty damn good level of advancement.


Nick
 
emperorpenguin said:
Celisasu said:
I also frequently hear complaints about Dark Elves and to a lesser degree I hear whines about Vampire Counts.
:

you hear complaints about Dark Elves!? They are one of the most underpowered armies there is along with Tomb Kings. And largely because the writer was too busy with Inquisitor at the time

Ok this is a tad offtopic, but TOMB KINGS?! UNDERPOWERED?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

I can SORT of see where people could be coming from with Vampire counts and Dark Elves (though personally I think theyre both still perfectly good armies if used well). But Tomb Kings? I've got three words for anyone who things Tomb King's are UNDERpowered.

Casket.
Of.
Souls.


(thats by no means it by the way, Arrows of the Asp are nasty too, and the Chariots are deadly)

Sweet Jesus! Who have you been playing against EP? (for the record I happen to think WFB is actually fairly well balanced at the moment and I still enjoy playing it, sure it's not perfect and people will always whine about one thing or another but I will still happily play any army against any OTHER army and be confident that I can win it if I PLAY better.).

Thats one of the things I DO like about ACTA incidentally, I still feel most of the time that the game is won or lost on the table and not when picking your fleet. (as opposed to some games that I shan't mention but that may or may not involve Hammers. At war. 40,000 years on from now... that most games tend to be won or lost when picking your force regardless of what you DO with it)
 
Locutus9956 said:
Ok this is a tad offtopic, but TOMB KINGS?! UNDERPOWERED?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

I've got three words for anyone who things Tomb King's are UNDERpowered.

Casket.
Of.
Souls.

Sweet Jesus! Who have you been playing against EP?

Thats one of the things I DO like about ACTA incidentally, I still feel most of the time that the game is won or lost on the table and not when picking your fleet. (as opposed to some games that I shan't mention but that may or may not involve Hammers. At war. 40,000 years on from now... that most games tend to be won or lost when picking your force regardless of what you DO with it)


Yep ACTA is largely not won or lost in fleet selection like those others.

Who am I playing against? My Tomb Kings are still mostly on their sprues 4 years after I bought them!
Other Warhammer players tell me this, Tomb kings never do well in tournaments, the rankings back that up. Casket of Souls isn't that powerful.
and Dark Elves are pants!
 
Tomb Kings can be very nasty. The real trick to them is learning how to get best use from the Charriots. Oh and use LOTS of archers. Arrows of the asp may not look much on paper. Always hits on 5+, well woop de doo. Ok but always hitting on a 5+ at long range against a skrimishing enemy in heavy cover while your archers are moving? Thats a whole different KIND of useful.

And the Casket of Souls IS that powerful. I dont think its OVERpowered as some people claim but it is still very VERY good. Especially against low leadership forces like Skaven or even middling ones like Empire (probably not worth it vs Dwarves or, to a lesser extent, Elves and Lizardmen).

As for Darkelves. Well Darkelves are, I will grany you a very tricky army to REALLY master, but if you DO they can be very nasty. The key is mobility and firepower. Repeater Crossbows and Bolthrowers can be deadly but you really need to, when playing them make the best possible use of your excellent fast cavalry to harras and hit weaker units. Dark Elves dont do well if you try to wipe your opponents army out, but as with Wood Elves, they utterly EXCEL if you play a sort of 'guerrila warfare' and take out a few choice targets and deny the fight to the rest of the army.

But I digress. This is an ACTA forum, not a Warhammer forum, I (as you may have guessed from this and my last post) am something of an avid WFB player and would be more than happy to discuss tactics with anyone but this isnt really the place ;). So anyway back on topic:

Its that whole, tactical play, not tactical army selection thing I really want to see in ACTA as a whole (and in 2nd Ed). Its there already more than alot of games but theres still a bit of 'Ive got a better fleet, Im going to win and theres nothing you can do about it' at times (the main culprits at the moment are the Centauri Beam team and NBS, though Vorolons can be a bit iffy sometimes (Except against shadows where the problem is more or less the other way round (less so now since the Vorlons firepower went up but its still far from perfect).

That's not to say I don't want proper fleet selection to be an important part of the game, I would just like to avoid there being fleet selectiions that are essentially 'I win buttons' that are virtually impossible to counter. To go with 2 examples:

Example One: Stealth. Stealth as it stands now is actually pretty good. Yes its nasty and the Minbari player can stand off and fire away, but theres plenty of things you can do ingame to counter it so its not such an issue any more.

Example Two: The beam team. This is less good. How do you counter being so heavily outgunned that half your fleet is generally wiped out before you can get into firing range? Sure you can use terrain or hyperspace but Im sure I dont need to point out that this isnt always an option and careful deployement by the Centauri can mittigate alot of these counters. Im not going to point fingers at any one ship as, really I dont have a problem with individual Centauri ships (especially the larger ones) having that kind of firepower. Its the fact that you can build fleets of things like Sullusts (which from their fluff are supposed to be few and far between operating as escorts for main line ships) and Prefects that, while good on their own, are HORRIFIC en masse.

But hey, I still have high hopes for 2nd Ed. Time will tell. Sooner or later..... Time will tell. (sorry been playing Red Alert :P)

ps. One minor thing, though I woundnt base any evaluation on the GW tournament circuit, you will never find a more wretched hive of cheese and powergaming (and Tomb Kings and Dark Elves dont lend themselves to munchkiney play, they require a certain degree of finesses and can lose very easily if you make a few little mistakes, hence they dont do well in tourneys, but they are certainly capable!)
 
Locutus9956 said:
Especially against low leadership forces like Skaven or even middling ones like Empire (probably not worth it vs Dwarves or, to a lesser extent, Elves and Lizardmen).

doesn't work well versus Skaven either because of their stupid rank bonus add-on to leadership......

ps. One minor thing, though I woundnt base any evaluation on the GW tournament circuit, you will never find a more wretched hive of cheese and powergaming (and Tomb Kings and Dark Elves dont lend themselves to munchkiney play, they require a certain degree of finesses and can lose very easily if you make a few little mistakes, hence they dont do well in tourneys, but they are certainly capable!)

but that is exactly where you see which armies are broken. In ACTA both ISA and Minbari (and now Centauri) received attention because they were dominating tournament play.
 
Locutus9956 said:
Casket.
Of.
Souls.

Wimpy unit :twisted:(just joking. Usefull unit but I don't think it's their scariest asset) What really makes tomb kings scary is the insane amount of automaticly cast spells. Sure they are easy to dispel but they will simply batter through your defence by sheer numbers and then you'll find unit charging into your flank with magic power...Not fun when unit of charriots charges into your flank. Oh dear...

Oh and tomb scorpions are just plain annoying when they tunnel into your warmachines :D

emperorpenguin said:
Other Warhammer players tell me this, Tomb kings never do well in tournaments, the rankings back that up. Casket of Souls isn't that powerful.

Well my friend won himself nice forge world keeper of secret from big tournament(if you didn't guess size from the prize :D) with his tomb kings...
 
tneva82 said:
Sure they are easy to dispel but they will simply batter through your defence by sheer numbers and then you'll find unit charging into your flank with magic power...Not fun when unit of charriots charges into your flank. Oh dear....

They live or die by their magic. Versus Khorne or Dwarfs (have played the latter) they have a very tough time, especially as Dwarfs are so hard to flank

Well my friend won himself nice forge world keeper of secret from big tournament(if you didn't guess size from the prize :D) with his tomb kings...

but the general trend of the last few years (and I've been watching) is Skaven, Lizardmen, Wood Elves, Brettonians. Quite quite sad :(
 
Errr how have we ended up talking about not just a different companies product but a completely different genre of wargame?

Mind you I must admit it makes a more intresting read than the discussion about points vrs PL, as everything intresting has been said about that probably 5 pages ago, and since then its just been rehashed and repeated time after time, and in 2 different threads as well at the same time.
 
emperorpenguin said:
They live or die by their magic. Versus Khorne or Dwarfs (have played the latter) they have a very tough time, especially as Dwarfs are so hard to flank

Hmmm...Maybe I'm just poor player. I play khorne(well actually all gods :D) plus dwarves and tomb kings are one of the nuttiest opponents I can think off with both(well except my friends empire and his lucky hellblaster which alone can win games...That guy just can't roll misfire...). Mark of khorne is so expensive I can't afford lots of them and dwarves...Well 5 dispel dice(basic+runesmith) is all well and dandy but it's not enough against that barrage of magic.

but the general trend of the last few years (and I've been watching) is Skaven, Lizardmen, Wood Elves, Brettonians. Quite quite sad :(

True but I don't think Khemri cannot win tournaments. They are just finese army which means most tournament heavy-doers go for "easy power" armies. Skilled player can make Khemri positively deadly(as I have found to my chagrin :D)

Of course it's now been almost year since I have played in FB tournament myself so my "touch" is bit of out-of-date :D
 
Well we're wargamers and since we've already said what we want about points and PL we've gone on a tangent about other wargames we enjoy and their balance or lack thereof. In this case obviously Warhammer. :lol:

Since I'm currently building an Orc&Gobbo army, what do the Warhammer players think of their viability or lack thereof with their newest book?
 
tneva82 said:
Abraxas said:
Compare 2 ships. Grab another ship and compare it to one of the ships you picked before. Than compare it to the other. Play with stat-lines as you see fit to get a basic equivilance... and than grab another ship and compare it to the ships you have already done.

This method will lead to broken ships...You just CAN'T simply look at 2 ships at time when determining point values. That simply leads to broken ships.

Which is why after you have compared 2 ships... you move onto another... and then another... and then another.

You...cannot...compare...ships...one...to...one...

Well not if you want any semblance of balance anyway. So your method doesn't work.

No.

What you do is compare 2 ships (in the beginning) and then every ship after that is compared to each ship you already did. You ratio each ship to each ship so that in the end you have a fleet of ships that are balanced with EACH other.

That is an example of a failure in the system which can EASILY be fixed by reversing the values.

SImilar problems in PL system are easy to fix as well.

No, cause than you have to go and change the stats.

The Prefect is too good to be a Raid but not quite good enough to be Battle. What do you do? The Vorchan is the same way. These ships are "between" levels, so the only way to fix them is to cahnge the statline.

This process is FAR more involved than changing it's point cost.






Look, I'm done. I clarified my system and if you and other readers don't think it will work, so be it. Also, as someone has said, this debate has been rehashed and rehashed and all we are doing is repeating ourselves.

In the end, it doesn't matter who wins or loses this debate. The PL system is here to stay... and I understand that.

Abraxas, signing off...
 
he's STILL arguing the same point! :cry: :x

so Orcs & Gobbos? Haven't looked in detail at the new book yet. All I know is the models are cool, the new Black orcs :D
 
Well from the poll, over twice as many people prefer PLs to points. Currently it is 25 vs. 12
or you coud say 26 people are thinking that the current Pl system doesn´t work and only 12 want the old one.
 
emperorpenguin said:
he's STILL arguing the same point! :cry: :x

First off, I was replying to tneva82. Second, last I checked, this thread was about the PL system vs. a points system.

Feel free to spam about WH: Fantasy, though... but I just wanted to make that clear.

Also, if you would actually READ my post, I said I was done... but you're obviously WAY more busy talking about something completely unrelated to the topic... but don't let *me* (or the point of this entire thread) stand in the way :roll: .

emperorpenguin said:
Jhary said:
Well from the poll, over twice as many people prefer PLs to points. Currently it is 25 vs. 12
or you coud say 26 people are thinking that the current Pl system doesn´t work and only 12 want the old one.

talk about distorting the result!

Is it?

12 out of 38 people like the current system. Others either want a new system or want changes in the current one. Either way, it looks like keeping the system as it is would not adhere to the popular majority, which has voted otherwise.
 
there was a good reason why the topic drifted, we were fed up with repeated posts saying the same thing. Then you go and repeat again things which you already said umpteen times, no new information!

whatever way you dress it more people prefer the PLs
 
Back
Top