Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  Page 1 of 3
  [ 43 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

Firestorms
1. Reduce AT value by 1 (so 2 x AP5+/AT6+/AA4+). 38%  38%  [ 8 ]
2. 0-2 replace Fire Prisms, and free upgrades in Shields. 19%  19%  [ 4 ]
3. 0-2 replace Fire Prisms, and free/25/50 upgrade in Shields. 10%  10%  [ 2 ]
4. 0-2 for 75 each, and free/25/50 upgrade in Shields. 33%  33%  [ 7 ]
Total votes : 21

Firestorms
Markconz
 Post subject: Firestorms
PostPosted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 11:41 am 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: New Zealand
Following previous discussion here:
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/cgi-bin....t=10223

Firestorms - widely considered overpowered for the points in their current form. Players take Falcon formations just to get Firestorms, and Firestorms are a no brainer choice over Falcons because they essentially do everything a Falcon does and more for the same price. People have complained that Firestorms are too easily able to shut down enemy air. Additionally here's some context I provided in the other  thread:

To look at points, if we were to compare the Firestorm to a Hydra, both are similar AA tanks and currently both cost 50 points, but the Firestorm is clearly much better:
Hydra has AP4+ and an extra 30cm range Ap5+ shot, while FireStorm has AA4+. Even if we were to say that the increased AP and the 30cm AP5 on the Hydra made the tanks equivalent (which I certainly wouldn't - the increased AA is much more valuable than marginally more AP), then the Firestorm still has +5cm movement, AND Skimmer, AND hit and run, AND better armour, AND better FF on top of that (not to mention being in an army with SR4+ and double retains).


So do they get a stats tweak - or a points tweak? How much is enough if they get a points tweak?

Some possible questions to think about:
-Is just tweaking the AT value the easiest solution given that it was at least popular in the last poll?
-Adding four 45cm AA4+ shots to a Swords of Vaul formation with almost no reduction in it's groundfire capability. Is that worth +30 points or +50 points?
-3 strong Shield formations including 2-3 Firestorms are easily broken if you have the means, but allow dense AA coverage. Should these cost more or is 175 ok? Compare with the 150 for 3 Hydra. (EDIT: following discussion below  - should these Shield formations actually be allowed in the first place? Please consider this issue here in addition to voting in the current poll, thank you).


OPTIONS ARE:

1. Reduce AT value by 1 (so 2 x AP5+/AT6+/AA4+).

2. 0-2 replace Fire Prisms, and free upgrades in Shields. 0-2 Firestorms may replace Fire Prisms in Swords of Vaul Formation (ie they will cost 65 rather than 50 points each). 0-3 Firestorms may replace Nightspinners in an Shields Troop (ie no change and they will cost 58.33 points each).

3. 0-2 replace Fire Prisms, and free/25/50 upgrade in Shields. 0-2 Firestorms may replace Fire Prisms in a Swords of Vaul Formation (ie they will cost 65 rather than 50 points each). 0-3 Firestorms may replace Nightspinners in a Shields of Vaul Troop. A single Night spinner may be replaced with a Fire Storm for no additional cost, 2 Night Spinners may be replaced with 2 Fire Storms for +25 points additional cost, 3 Night Spinners may be replaced with 3 Fire Storms for +50 points additional cost (ie 1 will cost 58.33 points, 2 will cost 70.83 points each, 3 will cost 75 points each).

4. 0-2 for 75 each, and free/25/50 upgrade in Shields. As for option 3, but rather than costing 65 each in a Swords formation, they will cost 75 each.

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Moscovian
 Post subject: Firestorms
PostPosted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 11:48 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 6:32 pm
Posts: 6414
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania USA
At this point I find it humorous that the option to remove Firestorms from the Shields of Vaul formation (EDIT - or reduce their availability to 0-1 per formation) (something that is also visibly supported by a healthy portion of the community) wasn't even brought up.

Not trying to get your dander up, Mark, but that is a slap in the face or just a big oversight.




_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Markconz
 Post subject: Firestorms
PostPosted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 12:09 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: New Zealand

(Moscovian @ Aug. 15 2007,10:48)
QUOTE
At this point I find it humorous that the option to remove Firestorms from the Shields of Vaul formation (something that is also visibly supported by a healthy portion of the community) wasn't even brought up.

Not trying to get your dander up, Mark, but that is a slap in the face or just a big oversight.

I honestly wasn't even aware that was an option Mosc!? :O

Frankly I never intended anything more than absolute minimal changes to Sotec's and MC23's (and our) existing 1.8 proposals. Minor tweaks to points or something for the purposes of balance. Certainly not anything major like reconstituting formation types that were decided upon after much discussion (except for the Swords size that Sotec and others had already raised at SG ages ago).

Also as Neal and others have said, points tweaks are a lot easier for people to stomach than stuffing up their formations numbers.

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Moscovian
 Post subject: Firestorms
PostPosted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 12:25 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 6:32 pm
Posts: 6414
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania USA
Well, to regurgitate from the previous thread...
The Shield of Vaul Formation didn't show up till the last iteration of Sotec's rules. Look!

At that time I had reservations of adding a brand new formation idea at the last second. ?It was akin to adding the spirit stones to the Eldar as an afterthought (which purportedly occurred during Swordwind development). ?But there it was nonetheless, adorning the new 1.7 Biel-tan like some clingy afterbirth of the list. ?No surprise to me now people are complaining about the Firestorms. ?Three of the five people posting on the previous thread made similar claims: it isn't the Firestorms - it is the Shields of Vaul formation.

The SHoV formation had the least discussion and the least playtesting of all the changes.  People were just so tired of discussion at the time it sailed through like pork on a Congressional bill.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Markconz
 Post subject: Firestorms
PostPosted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 12:50 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: New Zealand

(Hena @ Aug. 15 2007,10:51)
QUOTE
Have you asked Sotec to take part in these? It's not as if he isn't around the SG board usually.


PM'ing you on that issue.

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Markconz
 Post subject: Firestorms
PostPosted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 1:05 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: New Zealand

(Moscovian @ Aug. 15 2007,11:25)
QUOTE
People were just so tired of discussion at the time it sailed through like pork on a Congressional bill.

Lol! Yes, maybe so  :D

However, consideration given to totally removing the Shields of Vaul formation is something that I would then like to consider as a separate issue in a separate poll (like that considering removing the Biel Tan Aspect Troupe - which was also a last minute addition by Sotec against the wishes of MC23 and others).

Firestorms need tweaking in Swords formations whether Shields formations stay or go, so this poll will cover all eventualities. If the Shields go, at least the tweaks to the Swords formation will be be done. If the Shields stay then this poll will decide the points cost of that formation.

Let's do this and then also consider the Shields idea which I might as well run concurrently to get it over with perhaps...

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Moscovian
 Post subject: Firestorms
PostPosted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 2:46 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 6:32 pm
Posts: 6414
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania USA
Fair enough.  I voted above, even though the poll seems to validate the Shields of Vaul formation (which needs either serious tweaking or deletion).

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Markconz
 Post subject: Firestorms
PostPosted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 2:50 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: New Zealand

(Moscovian @ Aug. 15 2007,13:46)
QUOTE
Fair enough.  I voted above, even though the poll seems to validate the Shields of Vaul formation (which needs either serious tweaking or deletion).

I'm intending to add some details up there concerning a Shields poll - that should hopefully not confuse people too much...

(EDIT: Ok added a note above and the Shield stay or go poll.)

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Markconz
 Post subject: Firestorms
PostPosted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 11:24 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: New Zealand

(Hena @ Aug. 15 2007,19:19)
QUOTE
One might even consider AT6+ and 75 point cost per Firestorm. But with the current rules for exchanging in Swords of Vaul. And only 1 exchanged in Shields of Vaul.

So no vote in the poll.

I actually had a 'none of these ideas goes far enough...' option to this poll, but deleted it because I didn't think enough people would seriously consider being meaner than options above for 75 points each (hey a couple of people even started by trying to argue for no change in the last poll!)... looks like at least one person wants to be different though (how'd I know it would be you Hena...  :glare:)

0-2 for 75 points, 0-1 per formation in Shields, AT6.

Anyone else seriously thinks that's a good idea let us all know...  ???

Frankly I think you are just splitting hairs and being difficult to no great end once again Hena....  I'll just count you as option 4 seeing as you obviously favour the harsher solutions (unless there is overwhelming response to you proposal of course...).  If I added up all the time I spent dealing with your obscure ideas I'm sure I could have rewritten the rules twice over...

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Charad
 Post subject: Firestorms
PostPosted: Fri Aug 17, 2007 7:49 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 8:59 pm
Posts: 1212
Location: Finland
Downgrading AT to 6 would be best solution, because falcons are almost pure AT unit and that limits total shooting power and so cuts their effect. I personally don't want any more units with odd point values, because eldar lack upgrades and list usually have some leftover points.

_________________
Rats Keep Running...

Dark Eldar Dracon
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Irondeath
 Post subject: Firestorms
PostPosted: Sun Aug 19, 2007 4:36 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 12:36 pm
Posts: 653
For the record, I consider the 2xNS 1xFS combination the least attractive of the current Shields of Vaul variants. It?s just plain bad!  :(

_________________
Visit www.epic-battles.de the ultimate german epic site&forum!
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
  Print view Previous topic | Next topic 
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  Page 1 of 3
  [ 43 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 37 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

cron

Powered by phpBB ® Forum Software © phpBB Group
CoDFaction Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net