Home
Gallery
Register
Log inLeague so far
3 posters
Page 1 of 1
League so far
System Commander Wed Jul 22, 2009 11:17 am
So, were a good 7 weeks into the new league and i wanted to find out what people are thinking about it. Things to think about:
Are you enjoying the different type of games? (recon, strategic, and control)
Do you prefer the old simple set-up more?
Do you like seeing your army change and potentially evolve?
Etc. etc. Feel free to be honest, Im looking for alot of feedback.
Are you enjoying the different type of games? (recon, strategic, and control)
Do you prefer the old simple set-up more?
Do you like seeing your army change and potentially evolve?
Etc. etc. Feel free to be honest, Im looking for alot of feedback.
System Commander- System Commander
- Posts : 4695
Join date : 2008-02-26
Re: League so far
Guardian Angel Wed Jul 22, 2009 1:18 pm
From my limited playing (all recon games so far) I have enjoyed the new format, but I am really feeling the itch to play a different army....especially with the new Ironclad out.
I am not sure how I would change it in the future, but some flexibility on armies would be nice. Some options are:
--> You could potentially run it "fluffy" and say that you are allowed to play any armies that can be allies in Apoc. You know...space marines launch a few surgical strikes (recon games) ahead of the massed waves of Imperial guard. Or Chaos Marines strike key defensive installations in advance of a Daemonic Incursion. This would work nicely for the Apoc. games, but is kinda limiting to those that only have 1 or 2 armies.
--> You could just run seperate "accounts" for each player. For example, I may have 23 Recon points and 15 Strategic with my Guard army and 12 Recon and 5 Strategic points with my Khorne/Nurgle list. This is a TON more book keeping on Robyn's end though.....and this is not really reasonably to ask Rob to do this.
--> A player must challenge (attack) with the same list all the time, but is allowed to play any army when accepting a challenge (defending). Personally, I kind of like this last idea. You could even go so far at to provide a bonus points if you defend with the same army your challenge with. There was bonus points similiar to this in the last escalation league.
Just some ideas....
I am not sure how I would change it in the future, but some flexibility on armies would be nice. Some options are:
--> You could potentially run it "fluffy" and say that you are allowed to play any armies that can be allies in Apoc. You know...space marines launch a few surgical strikes (recon games) ahead of the massed waves of Imperial guard. Or Chaos Marines strike key defensive installations in advance of a Daemonic Incursion. This would work nicely for the Apoc. games, but is kinda limiting to those that only have 1 or 2 armies.
--> You could just run seperate "accounts" for each player. For example, I may have 23 Recon points and 15 Strategic with my Guard army and 12 Recon and 5 Strategic points with my Khorne/Nurgle list. This is a TON more book keeping on Robyn's end though.....and this is not really reasonably to ask Rob to do this.
--> A player must challenge (attack) with the same list all the time, but is allowed to play any army when accepting a challenge (defending). Personally, I kind of like this last idea. You could even go so far at to provide a bonus points if you defend with the same army your challenge with. There was bonus points similiar to this in the last escalation league.
Just some ideas....
Guardian Angel- Grandmaster
- Posts : 425
Join date : 2008-03-11
Re: League so far
System Commander Wed Jul 22, 2009 2:08 pm
Those are great suggestions. I had contemplated the second one, but as you mentioned it might get a bit confusing just because youd have to check which army the guy was using and keep two different totals.
However, the third option actually sounds like a fantastic idea. The only thing I'd be a bit skeptical about would be someone playing a different on the defense everytime, and switching up armies depending who he's fighting. I dont think anyone would do this willingly, but might work its way in if the option to do so is there. I could have initial sign up state your primary army, and then one alterante army that players could use hen they are the defender. That might work good.
Thanks for the suggestion though, I really like that one.
However, the third option actually sounds like a fantastic idea. The only thing I'd be a bit skeptical about would be someone playing a different on the defense everytime, and switching up armies depending who he's fighting. I dont think anyone would do this willingly, but might work its way in if the option to do so is there. I could have initial sign up state your primary army, and then one alterante army that players could use hen they are the defender. That might work good.
Thanks for the suggestion though, I really like that one.
System Commander- System Commander
- Posts : 4695
Join date : 2008-02-26
Re: League so far
Guest Wed Jul 22, 2009 2:23 pm
i really like the third one as well, and this does make since fluff wise because there might be factions that dont have the resource or men to try and attack. they may be stranded or separated from the main army. or how every you want to put it they would still be in the way for world domination.
Guest- Guest
Re: League so far
Timbo Thu Jul 23, 2009 12:28 am
I agree that some choice with armies is a good thing. 11 weeks is a long time to be stuck with one army. Another way to avoid metagaming would be to challenge with a particular army. In fact, then people could metagame against you. However I don't really see this as a huge issue with this group. The games are generally of the fun rather than the "win at all costs" variety. And regardless, a player's army is fixed for the playoffs anyhow.
Timbo- Lord of Titan
- Posts : 1177
Join date : 2009-01-26
Age : 54
Location : Saskatoon
Similar topicsPage 1 of 1
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum|
|
|