It is currently Fri Sep 22, 2017 3:13 pm


DFC: dont hate me another "G" Topic again! ;-P

Stuck on a rules interpretation, get it answered here!
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

dread2005

Hawk Talon

  • Posts: 724
  • Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 3:54 pm

DFC: dont hate me another "G" Topic again! ;-P

PostThu Jan 05, 2017 12:09 pm

i thought about page 40 again... and i still seek the real big deal of using this rule! so here is another way of looking at this!

i really hope for some meaningfully comments on this.

Pleas read slowly what i am intending here, thanks 8-)
firstly this shell be a pro and con Topic for a possible "hous rule", because in the end the rule for grouping same calsses is clear to me as RAW

now what i know and think about grouping up same ships:

pro
bigger CAW output (minor in my eyes)

neutral
lesser groups, which makes lesser activation and tracking on table (hm i see this as no con and no pro.... its hm unimportant)

con
forces bigger ships to stick at coherency (minor in my eyes since some research with the given 8 scenarios)
groups of list building are not same at the table after game starts (big con in my eyes)

now what i would change to make it work without the rule on page 40:

- player can decide if he wants to use rule 40 or not, its not a must just a optional choice

or

- multiple the "G" value of all ships by 3x, and dont use the rule on page 40


some test gave me minor changes in the way of what can be achieved after this changes....
what i want to tell is, that i dont see any balancing issue or any metabreak by using the Rule on Page 40, i think the game is fine without or with the cahnges above, becose the other restrictions at fleet building are strong engouth to keep it balanced!

now what do you think, tell me! :mrgreen:

example: (the max points of 500 at 1500 per battlegroup does the restrictions of mass ships better than rule 40)

Image
Last edited by dread2005 on Thu Jan 05, 2017 1:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Quote: " nothing is ever easy " by zedicus zul zorrander

Dropfleet ADMIRAL may Mankind conquer the universe
UCM ~2500 Points, PHR ~2000 Points

Dropzone GENERAL revenge of Mankind
PHR 2000 Points, UCM 3500 Points
Offline

hargon

  • Posts: 11
  • Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2016 12:37 pm

Re: DFC: dont hate me another "G" Topic again! ;-P

PostThu Jan 05, 2017 12:22 pm

I dont like the rule either. But I dislike the "choice" more you are trying to introduce. In my oppinion, a rule like "you cant choose a group more than once in a BG" would fix it. No 16 caw-frigate swarms, no coherency issues with same type cruisers beeing forced to be in a group instead of a BG.
Offline
User avatar

Cry of the Wind

Hawk Talon

  • Posts: 973
  • Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2015 12:27 pm
  • Location: Airdrie, Alberta, Canada

Re: DFC: dont hate me another "G" Topic again! ;-P

PostThu Jan 05, 2017 12:23 pm

Hmm not sure I like the idea of boosting the G stat by 3. Id just leave it alone and give the option to not group up ships of the same class. Nothing really changes in the list building and Id keep changes simple if you feel must try them. Id be curious to hear how/if it changed your games after say 3 games of each style.

Only part of the Groups I personally dont like is the forcing of very large ships grouping. Id rather just see heavy cruisers and up get an option to fly solo but not sure how balance would be effected. Heavy spam could be fun to try out.

I also think the groups issue might not be so bad in practice. Since Im still waiting on my pledge and dont wanna proxy 900pts of ships I cant test it yet. That said given a 4x4 table and the number of ships plus objectives to grab means keeping within 6" wont be as big a problem as feared. It gives list building more meaning too as this game is one of the least restrictive Ive played.

Isnt this more general discussion not rules section though?
Offline
User avatar

dread2005

Hawk Talon

  • Posts: 724
  • Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 3:54 pm

Re: DFC: dont hate me another "G" Topic again! ;-P

PostThu Jan 05, 2017 12:41 pm

hargon wrote:.... In my oppinion, a rule like "you cant choose a group more than once in a BG" ...


well this right now is open to you, by avoiding same ships in one Battle Group, i do this most of the time and since than i cam to the knowledge that the rule on Page 40 is not necessary because i just dont use it! :mrgreen:

@ Cry yes 3x is a bit to high.... i did all my games till no without the Rule on page 40 and my opponent always was happy with it

so to test if it is different i am forced now to use actively this rule... :lol: 8-)

well so be it ill think about this, never did before gaming with the extra wish of using this rule...
Quote: " nothing is ever easy " by zedicus zul zorrander

Dropfleet ADMIRAL may Mankind conquer the universe
UCM ~2500 Points, PHR ~2000 Points

Dropzone GENERAL revenge of Mankind
PHR 2000 Points, UCM 3500 Points
Offline

Skinwalker

  • Posts: 271
  • Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2016 9:40 am

Re: DFC: dont hate me another "G" Topic again! ;-P

PostThu Jan 05, 2017 12:58 pm

I don't like the idea of making it optional. Balance issues aside, it is another thing that needs to be tracked on the table that can cause confusion.

"This BG has these 2 groups combined, but that BG other there with the same 2 groups has them separate....that BG has 3 combined, and that one is blablabla....".

I just don't think it's needed, the rule works fine as it is and doesn't have that much actual affect on the game, other than forcing you to make some decisions in list building.
Offline
User avatar

dread2005

Hawk Talon

  • Posts: 724
  • Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 3:54 pm

Re: DFC: dont hate me another "G" Topic again! ;-P

PostThu Jan 05, 2017 1:03 pm

Skinwalker wrote:I don't like the idea of making it optional. Balance issues aside, it is another thing that needs to be tracked on the table that can cause confusion.

"This BG has these 2 groups combined, but that BG other there with the same 2 groups has them separate....that BG has 3 combined, and that one is blablabla....".

I just don't think it's needed, the rule works fine as it is and doesn't have that much actual affect on the game, other than forcing you to make some decisions in list building.



Hm optional thing was more of a yes to all or no to all, not to select every singel BG.
Quote: " nothing is ever easy " by zedicus zul zorrander

Dropfleet ADMIRAL may Mankind conquer the universe
UCM ~2500 Points, PHR ~2000 Points

Dropzone GENERAL revenge of Mankind
PHR 2000 Points, UCM 3500 Points
Offline
User avatar

Cry of the Wind

Hawk Talon

  • Posts: 973
  • Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2015 12:27 pm
  • Location: Airdrie, Alberta, Canada

Re: DFC: dont hate me another "G" Topic again! ;-P

PostThu Jan 05, 2017 1:58 pm

Yea I figured you mean optional as before game pick one style not a hybrid of the house and core.

I wont be testing that myself partially because I accept it as part of list design and am a Talon so should probably play the book rules not house haha.

I am curious to hear how your testing goes however so please keep us informed on how it changes your lists/games.
Offline
User avatar

J.D. Welch

Hawk Talon

  • Posts: 5215
  • Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 7:16 am
  • Location: Gilbert, AZ, USA

Re: DFC: dont hate me another "G" Topic again! ;-P

PostSun Jan 08, 2017 10:50 am

I like pie.

:P











Seriously, David, it's not an issue. I think it prevents a lot of potential confusion because in-game ships do tend to "traffic James" up, and it's far simpler to designate which ships are all in the same battlegroup than it would be to try to keep squads of like-class ships separate. I can see the real possibility of confusion without "rule 40", as you call it, as well as the very real possibility of abuse.

After playing over 20 games, it's just natural to do it. Why do you keep resisting?

Here... Have some pie, you'll feel better... ;)
I love my job (well, I love having a job), but a bad day of gaming beats a good day of work every time!

http://www.theroadtovalhalla.blogspot.com
Offline
User avatar

Tauwolf

Hawk Talon

  • Posts: 229
  • Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2016 7:06 am
  • Location: Ohio

Re: DFC: dont hate me another "G" Topic again! ;-P

PostSun Jan 08, 2017 11:21 am

J.D. Welch wrote:"traffic James"


Side note... I just realized that I don't even want them to fix that in future printings. At this point, it's part of the culture of the game.
Offline

Lorn

Hawk Talon

  • Posts: 2268
  • Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 12:48 pm

Re: DFC: dont hate me another "G" Topic again! ;-P

PostSun Jan 08, 2017 11:42 am

J.D. Welch wrote:Seriously, David, it's not an issue. I think it prevents a lot of potential confusion because in-game ships do tend to "traffic James" up, and it's far simpler to designate which ships are all in the same battlegroup than it would be to try to keep squads of like-class ships separate. I can see the real possibility of confusion without "rule 40", as you call it, as well as the very real possibility of abuse.


Nonsense utter nonsense. Without that rule you would be able to split ships in the same BG avoiding such situations in the first place and you are more likely to place ships that want to split in the same BG avoiding confusion. I have the exact opposite experience in my games. It is still a terrible design decision.

German space magic for PHR would you like to know more?
http://www.hawkforum.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=7017
Next

Return to Rules Queries

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests