Tactical Command
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/

The Demolisher Debate
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=74&t=11690		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  Evil and Chaos [ Mon Feb 11, 2008 3:15 pm ]
Post subject:  The Demolisher Debate
Okay gents, let's hear it...
Author:  Ginger [ Mon Feb 11, 2008 3:23 pm ]
Post subject:  The Demolisher Debate
E&C

Could you do two things please -
- Move this to the rules amendments section so we can keep all the threads under the same heading

- Please summarise the debate to date. While I am sure that many already know the salient facts, it would possibly help focus peoples minds
Author:  Evil and Chaos [ Mon Feb 11, 2008 3:24 pm ]
Post subject:  The Demolisher Debate
Only a mod may move the thread, sorry, my mistake.
Author:  Tooninki [ Mon Feb 11, 2008 3:28 pm ]
Post subject:  The Demolisher Debate
AP 3+/AT4+ Ignore Cover for me thanks!
Want Demolisher back to common tank! :D
Author:  Moscovian [ Mon Feb 11, 2008 4:10 pm ]
Post subject:  The Demolisher Debate
I'll take a stab at summarizing this...

The demolisher has been commented on as underpowered given what it is supposed to be like in the fluff.  Many example have been cited and good arguments made.

http://www.tacticalwargames.net/cgi-bin....olisher

Mark posted this poll which resulted in a lot of people showing their support for the MW change.  It was echoed on Hena?s poll here.

http://www.tacticalwargames.net/cgi-bin....olisher

But the polls certainly weren?t landslide decisions. A significant percentage of people complained about ?Macro-Weapon?ing the demolisher.  

http://www.tacticalwargames.net/cgi-bin....olisher  Discussion reopened

http://www.tacticalwargames.net/cgi-bin....olisher  Minervan list

http://www.tacticalwargames.net/cgi-bin....olisher Blarg?s rant

My personal feeling is that this is a classic example of ?Be careful what you wish for, you may get it.?  The change went through and now it is becoming increasingly evident that making this a MW gun is a bad idea.  Although you will no doubt here arguing positions that it isn?t a problem, it needs some fine tuning, the points need to be changed, make it a less powerful MW, etc.
Author:  Evil and Chaos [ Mon Feb 11, 2008 4:13 pm ]
Post subject:  The Demolisher Debate
This was all because the Vindicator was rubbish really.

Frankly, I've come around to the opinion that it should stay rubbish, but change from 75pts each to 50pts each.

I've no idea why a Vindicator (The worst tank in the game) costs more than a Leman Russ (One of the best).
Author:  rpr [ Mon Feb 11, 2008 5:32 pm ]
Post subject:  The Demolisher Debate
If you want that 40k stuff, maybe Demolisher should have range of 15cm?
I voted for old values, the value of Vindicator is another thing.
Author:  pixelgeek [ Tue Feb 12, 2008 1:29 am ]
Post subject:  The Demolisher Debate

(Evil and Chaos @ Feb. 11 2008,07:13)
QUOTE
I've no idea why a Vindicator (The worst tank in the game) costs more than a Leman Russ (One of the best).

Because the point structure is from two entirely different armies.

Does Neal need to come in ad give his talk on cross list point comparisons again?
Author:  Evil and Chaos [ Tue Feb 12, 2008 1:33 am ]
Post subject:  The Demolisher Debate
Because the point structure is from two entirely different armies.

Does Neal need to come in ad give his talk on cross list point comparisons again?

He could try, but I'd ridicule him for trying to say that the Vindicator is even remotely balanced.


200pts for four, that's where they'd find their balance.
Author:  BlackLegion [ Tue Feb 12, 2008 1:53 am ]
Post subject:  The Demolisher Debate
None of the above. I'm for:
30cm AP3+/AT4+ Lance

And the Medusa would have
30cm AP3+/AT4+ Lance, Ignore Cover
Author:  pixelgeek [ Tue Feb 12, 2008 2:37 am ]
Post subject:  The Demolisher Debate

(Evil and Chaos @ Feb. 11 2008,16:33)
QUOTE
He could try, but I'd ridicule him for trying to say that the Vindicator is even remotely balanced.


WTF?

Who said anything about balanced?
Author:  Markconz [ Tue Feb 12, 2008 9:27 am ]
Post subject:  The Demolisher Debate

(Evil and Chaos @ Feb. 11 2008,13:15)
QUOTE
Okay gents, let's hear it...

Lol, haven't we heard it and heard it over and over again? And only recently too.

Maybe it will be reviewed again in a sufficient amount of time, but not before people actually have a chance to playtest.
Author:  Evil and Chaos [ Tue Feb 12, 2008 11:13 am ]
Post subject:  The Demolisher Debate

(pixelgeek @ Feb. 12 2008,01:37)
QUOTE

(Evil and Chaos @ Feb. 11 2008,16:33)
QUOTE
He could try, but I'd ridicule him for trying to say that the Vindicator is even remotely balanced.


WTF?

Who said anything about balanced?




You did, right here:


I've no idea why a Vindicator (The worst tank in the game) costs more than a Leman Russ (One of the best).
Because the point structure is from two entirely different armies.

Does Neal need to come in ad give his talk on cross list point comparisons again?


You attempt to justify the points cost of the Vindicator by saying that it is balanced within the context of its own army list structure.

Just because you don't actually say the word 'balanced' doesn't mean I don't know how to read, it's the only inference that can be drawn from that sentence... unless you actually disagree with your own assertion. :glare:




PS: There's no need to say 'What The F uck' at me, or to hypocritically use its abbreviational form; Whichever way you look at it, saying 'WTF' to someone is just plain rude.
Author:  nealhunt [ Mon Feb 25, 2008 9:25 pm ]
Post subject:  The Demolisher Debate
I have to admit that a point change has a certain appeal.  A 50 point cost would make the Vindicator and Razorback the signature close support vehicles for the SMs, which I don't think is too far off from the fluff.

There are a couple potential issues, of course.  A 33% point cost is definitely drastic and may be too much.  In terms of add-ons, adding a Vindicator picks up every bit as much firepower as if you added 2 Razorbacks, which definitely a good bargain.  It would also function well as a meat shield for loaded Rhinos.  It may not be worth 75, but it's probably worth more than 50.  Costs in between are going to run into the normal assortment of "not increments of 25" objections (not all of which are completely specious).

The other is that without the +5cm move to 25cm, it's still too much of a drag to be in any mobile or mech formation.  Even if it's cheap, you still won't likely see it mixed, leaving it to appear solely in dedicated formations.
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/