| | | | | You are not authorized to post a reply. |
| | Author | Messages | |
sienar
Sergeant
640 Posts
    
 | | 11/09/2005 10:15 AM |
| | recovered topic 11200 | |
[http://www.hordelings.com/frontend/profiles/profile.php?user_id=22] | |
|
sienar
Sergeant
640 Posts
| | 11/09/2005 10:15 AM |
| I was thinking we could just release Epic versions of all of these. Ya know, a 1200 point Gold Dragon to take on the Colossal Red when it comes out. [)] Most Huges (you could argue all) already have 'Epic' stats. They just don't have that pretty blue oval declaring them to be so. That leaves the idea of changing/removing Save=10.
Save=10 was an unattractive method of fixing a problem. Given the constraint that they were trying to make DDM stats more or less translate to DDM stats, this was an acceptable (if unpopular) decision. Changing their focus from sticking to RPG stats to adjusting as necessary (save=level) earlier would have made this less known of an entity.
There are thre options to this (perceived) problem. (I say perceived because I am not totally convinced there is a problem).
1) Do nothing
2) Change save=10 in some way
3) remove save=10 from all figures in a blanket errata
Option 1 is easiest to implement. No effort is required.
Option 2 requires the most maintenance of all. It is probably the most reasonable solution (again, presuming there is a problem), but adds reprinted cards/errata, which always leads to versioning difficulties.
Option 3 is much easier to do if a change is to be made. One statement in the errata until a new rulebook comes out. Or in the floor rules. 'Ignore Save=10'. I think removing it entirely creates less desirable results in game balance.
To make things worse, to make this change would necessitate making all other 'fixes' to problem/errors figs. Any reason they shouldn't change the Blue Wyrmling now that they have set a precedent with save=10? This is probably the best arguement against changing/removing save=10.
Down with the Blue Wyrmling! [}:)] | |
[http://www.hordelings.com/frontend/profiles/profile.php?user_id=22] | |
| 
Vrecknidj
Warlord
10493 Posts
United States
| | 11/09/2005 10:24 AM |
| Proviso: I haven't checked out the linked thread.
I've said before that I think a solution to the problem is to try to come up with some other values (save = 12, save = 15, whatever) on a Huge-by-Huge basis, and then playtest them and see what seems to work best.
Of course, I don't want to spend the time doing it, and I suspect you don't either.
Dave | |
Knowledge Arcana editor issues 5-9, Phoenix Lore Magazine editor, assistant editor for Rite Publishing;
My Trade Thread and My Reference Thread; Winner of WBC IV, IX and XIII; Rule #0: bshugg is always right! | |
|
Wrackspawn
ChristopherGroves
Warlord
6093 Posts
| | 11/09/2005 10:25 AM |
| Yeah I just don't see a clean way to make any changes. Slippery slope and all that ... once you make one change then you're going to want the Ochre Jelly and other oozes immune to stench, Blue Wyrmlings immune to electricity, bump the DC on the Beholder's abilities, etc.
Heck, you might even want to change the morale target for Epic play from 20 to 25. Those dudes are scary!
I can't see them doing anything other than possible printing / releasing some new cards for some specific figures ... but likely not the huges. At GenCon mike/shoe did indicate that the first priority were the seriously-reduced guys like Drizzt, etc. and other uniques. | |
Triangle DDM Skirmish Group | My Email | 45-ish trades and counting | Stuff for Trade
* * * Show your brother some love and click here * * * | |
|
Puggins
Sergeant
622 Posts
| | 11/09/2005 11:10 AM |
| I just don't see save=10 being eliminated without some major balance issues. The Huges were balanced using save=10. You only need to compare the Huge Red Dragon to Epic Kord to see the difference:
CE Huge Red Dragon 216
LVL: 19 SPD: F9
AC: 26 HP: 220
MELEE ATTACK: +16/+11/+11 (30 magic/25 magic/25 magic)
SPECIAL ABILITIES:
-Independent
-Aura of Fear 4 (Enemies in squares threatened by this creature gain morale save -4);
-Breath Weapon [] (Replaces attacks; cone; 55 fire damage; DC 24);
-DR 5
-Immune Fire
-Melee Reach 2
-Save = 10
-Spell Resistance
-Vulnerable Cold
Compare that with:
Aspect of Kord
#2/9; CG; Underdark; Epic; 208 pts
Lvl 11; Spd 10; AC 21; HP 160
Melee Attack: +20/+15/+10 (40 Magic)
Type: Large Outsider
Special Abilities:
- Aggression +10 (on its turn, this creature gets damage +10 whenever it is the first to activate in a round)
- Blindfight
- Cleave
- DR5
- Melee Reach 2
Can you honestly say that the two miniatures would be balanced if the Red Dragon had a save of 19? | |
References: http://www.maxminis.com/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=7231 | |
|
Vrecknidj
Warlord
10493 Posts
United States
| | 11/09/2005 11:20 AM |
| Thanks for that post Puggins, good comparison. However, given the two, a Save = 12 for the HRD might be justified. I mean, would making him Level 12 really be so unbalancing?
Dave | |
Knowledge Arcana editor issues 5-9, Phoenix Lore Magazine editor, assistant editor for Rite Publishing;
My Trade Thread and My Reference Thread; Winner of WBC IV, IX and XIII; Rule #0: bshugg is always right! | |
|
Wrackspawn
ChristopherGroves
Warlord
6093 Posts
| | 11/09/2005 11:24 AM |
| Yeah but that would require a costly / time-consuming figure-by-figure analysis. For that reason alone they won't do it.
A blanket change for all save=10 creatures would have the same kind of impact the game as saying morale is no longer checked (a la SWM) ... a large number of creatures would get a distinct shift in power, playability, etc. Game and OP would be thrown into cheezy turmoil.
Incidentially I responded with this thread:
http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=533445
Some figures MUST be better than others. This isn't chess or checkers. We play with dice. If the goal is to get things in-balance then all of the unplayed figures need to be adjusted so they get OP tournament play. | |
Triangle DDM Skirmish Group | My Email | 45-ish trades and counting | Stuff for Trade
* * * Show your brother some love and click here * * * | |
|
Aesnath
Underboss
1358 Posts
Augusta, GA
| | 11/09/2005 11:30 AM |
| The reason why they created Save=10, was that they were trying to keep a creature's level and save somewhat independent. The idea was odd. Why bother keeping a creatures HD and save somewhat independent if all HD dependent effects only care about levels of 5 or less. Anyway, they, at the time, seemed to be really resistant to simply modifying the level/save value of creatures regardless of RPG. Again, this is an odd decision, for some reason they were ok with modifying the attacks and hp of creatures, but not the level/save? They should have just done what they do now, have saves gradually increase for the more expensive creatures, but have the level of the creature not matter too much.
As for the errata idea, they leave other ineffectual creatures in the dust of time, I fail to see how the huges are any different. | |
**Note: Unless otherwise stated all my minis are unbagged**
My reference thread is at: http://www.maxminis.com/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=12765
Graduate school is swollowing my soul!!!!
Champion of the Raumathari Battlemage!
| |
|
forkedmoon
Underboss
1305 Posts
| | 11/09/2005 11:58 AM |
| A relatively easy and maybe usable solution to save=10 is for epic to make save=10 be a double chance to save. Roll twice for saves if save=10.
Not as nice a new epic cards, better than simple removal of save=10 since many figures that are not epic with save=10 have the save=10 figured in their costing for non-epic play. | |
Champion of Cyclops
| |
|
Felagund
Sergeant
922 Posts
| | 11/09/2005 12:24 PM |
| It's refreshing to see a much cleaner discussion of this over here!
Not surprisingly (since we're in the same skirmish group), I agree with sienar in not really thinking there is a current problem. We played an extreme tournament a few weeks back, and I won it with a dual Beholder band. The only thing I turned to stone was a Wyvern. And that's what a lot of the hype on the Wizards boards is about - losing your huge to a flesh to stone ray.
For me, the argument for eliminating Save=10 basically boils down to "I don't think this mini is playable, make it better so I can use it." Aside from the fact that I disagree on the playability of minis with Save=10, that just isn't the way erratta works. On these same grounds, why shouldn't people complain that they need changes to their Crested Felldrakes and Gnoll Archers, to make those figures more playable? | |
Champion of Gnomes | |
|
Liquidburn
Sergeant
944 Posts
| | 11/09/2005 1:01 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Puggins
I just don't see save=10 being eliminated without some major balance issues. The Huges were balanced using save=10. You only need to compare the Huge Red Dragon to Epic Kord to see the difference:
CE Huge Red Dragon 216
LVL: 19 SPD: F9
AC: 26 HP: 220
MELEE ATTACK: +16/+11/+11 (30 magic/25 magic/25 magic)
SPECIAL ABILITIES:
-Independent
-Aura of Fear 4 (Enemies in squares threatened by this creature gain morale save -4);
-Breath Weapon [] (Replaces attacks; cone; 55 fire damage; DC 24);
-DR 5
-Immune Fire
-Melee Reach 2
-Save = 10
-Spell Resistance
-Vulnerable Cold
Compare that with:
Aspect of Kord
#2/9; CG; Underdark; Epic; 208 pts
Lvl 11; Spd 10; AC 21; HP 160
Melee Attack: +20/+15/+10 (40 Magic)
Type: Large Outsider
Special Abilities:
- Aggression +10 (on its turn, this creature gets damage +10 whenever it is the first to activate in a round)
- Blindfight
- Cleave
- DR5
- Melee Reach 2
Can you honestly say that the two miniatures would be balanced if the Red Dragon had a save of 19?
Good point. Nicely put. | |
Jason Slingerland
"Why do I have to be Mr. Pink?" | |
|
Gnolaum
Sergeant
855 Posts
| | 11/09/2005 1:18 PM |
| Bah, now I have to carry on this discussion in 2 places. Thanks Puggins. If you are doing to dispute points in my thread, please do it in my thread.
Huge Red Dragon can to a maximum of 80 damage a turn. Aspect of Kord can to 150 (not counting Cleave, AoO, or a snakes swiftness), with more reliability.
I would expect a 'urrrg, me kill things' huge barbarian to have a lower save that a Huge Dragon.
Here lets say that the HRD and AoK start base to base. In base melee the HRD will do 55 (same as a breath) damage a turn to the AoK, and the AoK will do 66, 82 (depending on whether it stats first, lets average that to 75)
Round 1:
HRD 145/220
AoK 105/160
Round 2:
HRD 70/220 ***Morale Check ***
AoK 50/160 ***Morale Check ***
If the AoK fails the check, and runs, then the HRD has a good change of being able to finish the AoK off with a breath before the AoK can close to Melee range, again.
If the AoK makes the check, then whoever goes first in round 3 wins.
If the HRD has save=10, then this would be decided by whomever went first in round 2.
This battle is exactly even with save=10. This is unbalanced since the HRD costs more, and the battle does not take advantage of the biggests strength of the AoK (cleave, and support unit with Snakes Swiftness). The HRD *SHOULD* have save=19 to make this battle slightly in it's favor.
| | | |
|
Benimoto
Underboss
1125 Posts
| | 11/09/2005 1:23 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Gnolaum
This battle is exactly even with save=10. This is unbalanced since the HRD costs more, and the battle does not take advantage of the biggests strength of the AoK (cleave, and support unit with Snakes Swiftness). The HRD *SHOULD* have save=19 to make this battle slightly in it's favor.
Gnolom, all of your agruments here seem to point to your position being exactly "I don't think this mini is playable, make it better so I can use it" as Felagund said. What's wrong with the battle being exactly even? The two creatures cost within 8 points of each other.
I understand you want the dragon to be better because you like it more. Some people wanted the Beholder to be more powerful that it ended up. Neither of you got your wish. | |
Champion of the Rakshasa. Check out my Mini Terrain Maker, or my new Dungeon Map Maker (under development). | |
|
Gnolaum
Sergeant
855 Posts
| | 11/09/2005 1:31 PM |
| Last reply this discussion in this thread. If you want to discuss it furthur see the link above.
HRD should have an advantage for the reasons I listed in my post (can you read?). It has nothing to do with whether I like the mini or not (I actually don't, and don't ever intend to play it, even if save=10 was removed).
I think huges need saves redone because of instant death special abilities (Beholder, Flesh To Stone, Death Slaad Deadly Rend).
There are 3 ways to redo them
1) remove save=10 (by far the easiest)
2) release Epic cards for huges (amounts to reprinting cards since these are only Epic)
3) come up with a more complex system (I personally like min(10, min(16, level-3)) [complex is bad]. | | | |
|
Gnolaum
Sergeant
855 Posts
| |
Gnolaum
Sergeant
855 Posts
| |
Felagund
Sergeant
922 Posts
| | 11/09/2005 1:38 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Gnolaum
Bah, now I have to carry on this discussion in 2 places. Thanks Puggins. If you are doing to dispute points in my thread, please do it in my thread.
But he did post it in your thread...and you replied to it.
quote:
Originally posted by Gnolaum
Huge Red Dragon can to a maximum of 80 damage a turn. Aspect of Kord can to 150 (not counting Cleave, AoO, or a snakes swiftness), with more reliability.
Actually, the HRD can do a maximum of 440 damage in a round (breath weapon on 8 figures who fail their saves.) This doesn't take into account minions, summons, or creatures with "double damage from fire." But really, damage isn't everything. Look at HP, AC, and special abilities.
An Orc Champ is capable of 50 damage a round from his attacks, while the LSD only does 35. I'd still pick the Dragon in a one-on-one battle. | |
Champion of Gnomes | |
|
IanB
Commander
3112 Posts
| | 11/09/2005 2:26 PM |
| quote:
This battle is exactly even with save=10. This is unbalanced since the HRD costs more
1. Costing consists of more than 1 vs. 1 matchups alone. Who wins in a 1 vs. 1 battle between a justice archon and a dwarf samurai? Which is more useful in an actual game?
2. 8 points is a near-meaningless cost distinction in the 500 point format.
3. If 2 offensive pieces costing over 200 points that are within 8 points of each other are even in a fight, that says to me they're costed correctly. Save = 10 included. | |
Anson on WotC boards | |
|
Wrackspawn
ChristopherGroves
Warlord
6093 Posts
| |
Pauper
Sergeant
508 Posts
| | 11/09/2005 3:37 PM |
| Frankly, the discussion is better over here. People are actually looking at the figures and suggesting multiple points of balance, People are looking at both sides of the discussion, instead of blindly arguing one side or the other.
I think Felagund has the situation nailed - the main impetus behing the 'repeal save=10' argument seems to be 'I got my Huge Red turned to stone by a Beholder, that's not right!'
Vrecknidj's idea of simply shifting the Save=X point upward until we find a new balance point given the new figures in an interesting one. Rather than opening the floodgates completely, shift the boundary upward until there are a significant number of figures capable of dealing with a save 18 or 19 creature. An analogous situation would be attack bonuses vs AC: it doesn't make much sense to introduce a number of figures with AC35 if there are only a handful of figures in the game with attack bonuses higher than 15. You could introduce one such figure, then give it limitations that make it viable to play spellcasters or other figures against it that don't interact via the attack/AC mechanic, and still keep things in balance, but introducing a raft of such creatures without a significant population of counter-balancing figures will simply shift the game in favor of the few, high-AC creatures, to the detriment of variety and interest in the game.
In the context of Vrecknidj's suggestion, and given that the new epics tend to cluster around 12 for their saves, I wouldn't be heartbroken to see Save=10 become Save=12 for those huges that can benefit. I don't know that it's necessary, but it seems like a clearly better step than eliminating Save=10 entirely.
That's my $0.02US.
--
Pauper | |
Champion of the War Wizard of Cormyr | |
|
Puggins
Sergeant
622 Posts
| | 11/09/2005 4:44 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by ChristopherGroves
I meant for this to be a link to the discussion on the wizard's site ... and not a carry-over discussion. Gnolaum's frustration is deserved; the discussion started over there, let's try and keep it there.
I wassn't planning on crossposting my reply, but, honestly, I was upset by the shear disdain that the "remove save=10" crowd was showing dissenters. Gnolaum's pithy "can you read?" reply to a valid point is pretty typical of the types of attacks being slung over there.
And I'm with Pauper- I prefer the conversation over here. | |
References: http://www.maxminis.com/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=7231 | |
|
Feathers
Underboss
1140 Posts
| | 11/09/2005 4:51 PM |
| | I posted in the WotC thread as well and have seen a few replies that seem to be more focused on zinging one-liners and putdowns of people's arguments than about the arguments themselves. The same points are being made, but I think in general, it's more of a discussion here as opposed to there. | |
Champion of Neogi
Completed Trades/Transactions: sttmxn, Krush, jgsugden, Ayrychx2, Venport, Tysac
| |
|
Wrackspawn
ChristopherGroves
Warlord
6093 Posts
| | 11/09/2005 4:59 PM |
| Alright let's really get into it then.
Is this a problem in 200? Is this just a phantom issue of 500/epic/extreme and really relating to just the huges and other seemingly handicapped minis? How about normal versions of minis in epic play?
Set-wise you'd have to assume that GoL, Aberrations are the most "variant", Deathknell less so and by Angelfire and Underdark.
In Deathknell there are some stand-outs ...
Aspect of Nerull - 16
Thaskor - 13
ZWD - 15
Angelfire has a few
Steel Predator - 12
These are figures that see some limited play in 200 (moreso the ZWD than others) but do show up on occasion in 500. Should they be adjusted? Steel Predator sees FAR MORE PLAY in 500 ... any leve/save adjustments should examine the other appropriate figures. | |
Triangle DDM Skirmish Group | My Email | 45-ish trades and counting | Stuff for Trade
* * * Show your brother some love and click here * * * | |
|
Gnolaum
Sergeant
855 Posts
| | 11/09/2005 5:28 PM |
| /grumble
Alright then.
First I think the questions should be:
The yes/no answer to these should be completely seperate whether or not anything will/should be done to fix it and the logistics of such a solution.
1) Is save=10 a problem in Epic/Extreme?
2) Is save=10 a problem elsewhere (100/200pt)?
For any of the above questions that you answered yes to, you are then invited to participate in the discussion as to what should be done about it. If you answered no, then obviously you don't feel anything needs to be done, thus the contributions you can make to the discussion as to what should be done will not be useful, and you are invited to push the back button.
1) Yes
2) No
What can be done? (this is in regards to Epic play only, since I don't feel there is a problem in 200 point play).
There are the solutions I have thought of/read about:
1) Remove Save=10
2) Release Epic cards for figures
3) Complex formula to replace save=10
I can't think of any other possible means to deal with this. And there are problems to each. | | | |
|
Felagund
Sergeant
922 Posts
| | 11/09/2005 6:08 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Gnolaum
1) Is save=10 a problem in Epic/Extreme?
2) Is save=10 a problem elsewhere (100/200pt)?
For any of the above questions that you answered yes to, you are then invited to participate in the discussion as to what should be done about it. If you answered no, then obviously you don't feel anything needs to be done, thus the contributions you can make to the discussion as to what should be done will not be useful, and you are invited to push the back button.
Sorry, but just because some of us don't agree with you does not make our opinions invalid. In fact, by eliminating the opinions of the opposition, you're only going to be limiting the topic. | |
Champion of Gnomes | |
|
Gnolaum
Sergeant
855 Posts
| | 11/09/2005 6:12 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Felagund
quote:
Originally posted by Gnolaum
1) Is save=10 a problem in Epic/Extreme?
2) Is save=10 a problem elsewhere (100/200pt)?
For any of the above questions that you answered yes to, you are then invited to participate in the discussion as to what should be done about it. If you answered no, then obviously you don't feel anything needs to be done, thus the contributions you can make to the discussion as to what should be done will not be useful, and you are invited to push the back button.
Sorry, but just because some of us don't agree with you does not make our opinions invalid. In fact, by eliminating the opinions of the opposition, you're only going to be limiting the topic.
Suppose you feel that there is no problem (which I assume you do), what more can you contribute other than (1) saying you feel there is no problem, and (2) shooting down any possible solution because you feel there is no problem.
(1) is productive, (2) is not. | | | |
|
IanB
Commander
3112 Posts
| | 11/09/2005 6:20 PM |
| | In order to come up with a solution, you need to first prove that there is a problem. That's why having both sides be part of the discussion is important. You could of course simply get a bunch of people who all agree that there is a problem and have them discuss it, but that won't mean anything, especially to WotC, who would need to be convinced first that there is a problem in the first place. Coming up with solutions to problems that may not even exist isn't productive either, after all. | |
Anson on WotC boards | |
|
Felagund
Sergeant
922 Posts
| | 11/09/2005 6:30 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Gnolaum
Suppose you feel that there is no problem (which I assume you do), what more can you contribute other than (1) saying you feel there is no problem, and (2) shooting down any possible solution because you feel there is no problem.
(1) is productive, (2) is not.
I think IanB did a good job of explaining why the nay-sayers should still get to say nay, but I'll elaborate just a bit.
Fixing the problem you perceive is likely going to result in newly perceived problems for those who think things are fine the way they are. So (2) is in fact productive for those of us who see the "fixes" as potential problems. | |
Champion of Gnomes | |
|
Gnolaum
Sergeant
855 Posts
| | 11/09/2005 6:42 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by IanB
In order to come up with a solution, you need to first prove that there is a problem. That's why having both sides be part of the discussion is important. You could of course simply get a bunch of people who all agree that there is a problem and have them discuss it, but that won't mean anything, especially to WotC, who would need to be convinced first that there is a problem in the first place. Coming up with solutions to problems that may not even exist isn't productive either, after all.
And that is covered by the answers to their questions (yes/no). | | | |
|
Gnolaum
Sergeant
855 Posts
| | 11/09/2005 6:44 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Felagund
quote:
Originally posted by Gnolaum
Suppose you feel that there is no problem (which I assume you do), what more can you contribute other than (1) saying you feel there is no problem, and (2) shooting down any possible solution because you feel there is no problem.
(1) is productive, (2) is not.
I think IanB did a good job of explaining why the nay-sayers should still get to say nay, but I'll elaborate just a bit.
Fixing the problem you perceive is likely going to result in newly perceived problems for those who think things are fine the way they are. So (2) is in fact productive for those of us who see the "fixes" as potential problems.
I don't think WotC makes decisions based on what they see in message boards. If they do, then your contribution is going to be your 'No Problem' vote.
If you honestly don't feel there is a problem, then how do you feel you can contribute to discussion on the solution? | | | |
|
Bert the Troll
Commander
3964 Posts
Adelaide
| | 11/09/2005 6:44 PM |
| quote:
ChristopherGroves
My opinion is that if you were to remove save=10 from the figures that have it and set it equal to their level then ...
- You'd have to go back and look at all of the other creatures that had their save arbitrarily lowered in Deathknell, Angelfire and Underdark in the combined level/save stat and adjust them
Why? I havent seen much to detail that any/all those pieces would be effected badly.
quote:
- You'd have to look at all save-based-effects and see if their DCs need to be ratcheted upwards (Beholder, for instance).
Again why. The main 'feeling' is that huges saves arent good enough. It would be pointless to change the huges saves and then up every ones else's DCs to make it redundant.
quote:
- You'd create a bunch of complexity which would ultimately make the game worse
Again why? How complex is save always equals level in Epic/extreme games.
quote:
That said, there are other ways to resolve it (maybe rereleasing specific cards or producing another very similar miniature) that are much cleaner and more easily managed.
I dont think adding new cards is cleaner. Releasing cards will never happen.
Save always equals level is quite easily managed.
quote:
sienar
To make things worse, to make this change would necessitate making all other 'fixes' to problem/errors figs. Any reason they shouldn't change the Blue Wyrmling now that they have set a precedent with save=10? This is probably the best arguement against changing/removing save=10.
ChristopherGroves
Yeah I just don't see a clean way to make any changes. Slippery slope and all that ... once you make one change then you're going to want the Ochre Jelly and other oozes immune to stench, Blue Wyrmlings immune to electricity, bump the DC on the Beholder's abilities, etc.
I`m sorry, I have seen this agurement a few times, and I fail to understand it. I dont see making a change leading to changing everything. Cases in point. Changing from tiles to maps, changing from 12 minis limit to 8 mini limit. These things havent opened flood gates of massive changes.
Change happens. IMO, preventing/auguring aginst changes from occuring purely becasue you are worried that it might lead to other changes doesn't really address the need.
quote:
ChristopherGroves
A blanket change for all save=10 creatures would have the same kind of impact the game as saying morale is no longer checked (a la SWM) ... a large number of creatures would get a distinct shift in power, playability, etc. Game and OP would be thrown into cheezy turmoil.
Arent we talking less than a dozen figures out of how many hundard? Not really a large number when its less than 2%.
I dont see why you think it is comparable to morale, or other straman agurements.
quote:
Felagund
For me, the argument for eliminating Save=10 basically boils down to "I don't think this mini is playable, make it better so I can use it."
For me it is that this figure is not worth the points, and that it doesnt make 'gaming sense' that younger dragons save better than older dragons.
quote:
Aside from the fact that I disagree on the playability of minis with Save=10, that just isn't the way erratta works. On these same grounds, why shouldn't people complain that they need changes to their Crested Felldrakes and Gnoll Archers, to make those figures more playable?
Why shouldnt people complain when they want to see something change?
Of course things like the crested fell drake & gnoll archer arent really the same to my mind, but if someone thought they had a case for changing them, in a manner that didnt require much effort to remember & work (like elimating save=10) I would at least listen instead of saying one change will lead to too many.
To write off anyone wanting to change the save=10 rule as just wanting to play thier dragon is no different to saying those who want to keep the save=10 rule just want to make sure thier beholder stays the dominant piece.
IMO The save=10 is seen a very artifical rule that limits the huges without any real need now. I don't think huges are unplayable, but Epics are better costed.
It would make a range of mini more playable without invaladiating current pieces. Why is that seen as such a bad thing? Some of those pieces are the huge common uncommons like the Trex.
Removing save=10 or making save always equal level in epic/extreme seems to me the easiest wasy to make a change. Wont be perefect costings of minis, but closer than it is now. | |
"Mutton yesterday, mutton today, and blimey, if it don't look like mutton again tomorrer." Bert the Troll - The Hobbit
Semi-Secret sig business: "In the age of the internet attaching a famous name to your personal opinion to give more weight to it is a very valid strategy." - Benjamin Franklin
Champion of Epic Lolth, Orcus, & Demogorgon and bring us Asmodeus! | |
|
Bert the Troll
Commander
3964 Posts
Adelaide
| | 11/09/2005 6:57 PM |
| ps... any offence I may of given is unintentional.
& having reread the wiz thread, I can see what you mean but no longer discussing the issue in favour of put downs. | |
"Mutton yesterday, mutton today, and blimey, if it don't look like mutton again tomorrer." Bert the Troll - The Hobbit
Semi-Secret sig business: "In the age of the internet attaching a famous name to your personal opinion to give more weight to it is a very valid strategy." - Benjamin Franklin
Champion of Epic Lolth, Orcus, & Demogorgon and bring us Asmodeus! | |
|
Wraith
Warrior
312 Posts
| | 11/09/2005 7:00 PM |
| If WOTC gave a turd what we say in our topics, we would have a G-Cube! It will be them and them alone that will decide whether to change the save=10 rule.
I don't care for it much. Would like to see a change.
Now lets skirmish and stop bickering over something that only a hand ful have a say in. | |
| |
|
Felagund
Sergeant
922 Posts
| | 11/09/2005 7:05 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Gnolaum
If you honestly don't feel there is a problem, then how do you feel you can contribute to discussion on the solution?
Ideally, I'd like to convince people that there isn't a problem. Which is really the same end you're working towards. I'm just trying to solve things in a different way.
quote:
Originally posted by Bert the Troll
I`m sorry, I have seen this agurement a few times, and I fail to understand it. I dont see making a change leading to changing everything. Cases in point. Changing from tiles to maps, changing from 12 minis limit to 8 mini limit. These things havent opened flood gates of massive changes.
Change happens. IMO, preventing/auguring aginst changes from occuring purely becasue you are worried that it might lead to other changes doesn't really address the need.
The change to maps and 8 figure limit are proactive changes intended to make the game better. They represent a one-time change in the rules with the intent of being permanent.
To go back and overhaul the stats of previous minis would be a retroactive change. While the intent would still be to improve gameplay, this is a neverending task. With each new set, more of the older minis would have to be restatted in order to remain competetive.
I'd rather have the developers working on cool new minis than spending all their time tweaking the old ones. Furthermore, they have set a precedent of not changing the stats of previously existing minis. If they broke this precedent by changing save=10, why should they not go back to fix every other mini with sub-par stats?
quote:
Originally posted by Bert the Troll
For me it is that this figure is not worth the points, and that it doesnt make 'gaming sense' that younger dragons save better than older dragons.
"not worth the points" = not playable. As far as making "gaming sense," it makes perfect sense in DDM. The saves are printed right there on the card. If you're going to try to make the RPG mesh perfectly with DDM, you're just going to be disappointed. No, it doesn't make sense that the LSD has a better save than the HGD. Nor does it make sense that an Orc Sergeant can command a Nightwalker. The skirmish game puts these "RPG logic" concerns behind the concern of balance. Which is a good thing, imo. | |
Champion of Gnomes | |
|
Pauper
Sergeant
508 Posts
| | 11/09/2005 7:25 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by ChristopherGroves
Alright let's really get into it then.
Is this a problem in 200? Is this just a phantom issue of 500/epic/extreme and really relating to just the huges and other seemingly handicapped minis? How about normal versions of minis in epic play?
Excellent questions. I can't say I've noticed it as a problem in 200 point play, but there may be other reasons for that:
1. Very few save=10 figures are even legal in 200 point play.
2. Many figures with saves greater than 10 are too expensive to play, or to play effectively, in the 200 point environment. Example: Stone Golem. It's level 14, but it's also barely under the 70% rule and costs too many points (and thus activations) to be considered a viable 200 point titan. In 500 point play, it has other limitations that are more significant than its level and creature type advantages (speed, primarily).
3. Similarly, most of the figures that are pointed out as problems in 500-point play (multiple Beholders, mainly) aren't as big a problem in 200 point play for the same reason as 2 above: their cost is prohibitive for effective 200 point play. This suggests an alternative solution - take the 'problem figs' in 500 point play, release epic versions with better AC, HP, level, and such, but with essentially similar abilities, and increase their cost. Then make the rule that creatures with both epic and non-epic versions must be played in their epic versions in epic play. A 170 point epic Beholder wouldn't be as potent in epic play as the current Beholder, simply because you wouldn't be able to play three of them.
quote:
These are figures that see some limited play in 200 (moreso the ZWD than others) but do show up on occasion in 500. Should they be adjusted? Steel Predator sees FAR MORE PLAY in 500 ... any leve/save adjustments should examine the other appropriate figures.
Agreed.
--
Pauper | |
Champion of the War Wizard of Cormyr | |
|
infernis
Skirmisher
5 Posts
| | 11/09/2005 7:46 PM |
| First off, after reading through all the stuff on the wotc board, the discussion here seems a lot less intimidating.
Now on to this save = 10 issue.
As people said, you should not exclude people from a discussion just because you feel that the problem is valid. After reading the threads here and there I see several debates going on in a huge mass of confusion.
First debate: Is there a problem with the Save = 10 rule?
Second debate: Would changing the Save = 10 rule impact the game?
Third debate: What is the best way to change this rule?
NONE of these debates have a decided winner. The second and third debate all assume that the first debate was decided that there is a problem.
I propose a 4th debate for all those who feel there is a problem:
Assuming the Save = 10 rule is a problem, should we worry about it?
My humble opinion, assuming that there even is a problem, is that the "problem" is only in the Huge, Giants of Legend pieces above lvl 10. The result would be that those pieces will be used less than the new epic pieces. Is this bad? People that bought Giants of Legend boosters will obviously want to use their old pieces, but WOTC will not go back and change old pieces because those people want them too. Instead, they will introduce new pieces. The Huge creatures have been upstaged by the new epic pieces!
Now, Gnolaum, and any one else so adamant that the save = 10 rule must be changed, a good amount of you seem to think that making an errata, introducing new cards, making a global ruling, etc will be an easy change. Do you really think that printing new cards for the sole purpose of fixing this save = 10 rule is cost-efficient? How about making an errata? The only real errata WOTC made on any figure was when they banned the Drider Sorceror. They didn't change it. They just banned it. Saying the save = 10 rule does not exist is not so simple. More work is involved.
I'm getting tired of explaning, so I"ll just end here. Have your fun Gnolaum on your crusade against the save = 10 rule! I'll be at WOTC defending them on this
| |
| |
|
Zoons
Underboss
1067 Posts
| | 11/09/2005 7:51 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Felagund
No, it doesn't make sense that the LSD has a better save than the HGD. Nor does it make sense that an Orc Sergeant can command a Nightwalker. The skirmish game puts these "RPG logic" concerns behind the concern of balance. Which is a good thing, imo.
Good point. This was an irrational complaint in MTG as well. "How can a wall of stone wield a Warhammer?"
If you're looking for RPG sense stats..... Turn over the card.[:D]
As for changing the creatures, won't happen. It's a marketable game. WOTC will make better costed/abilitied creatures in future sets and we will buy them. No errata, no new print runs of cards. We will buy new. Just like the invasion dragons replaced the original craptastic (Relatively speaking) Legends dragons in Magic. They didn't go back and errata the casting cost of Arcades Sabbath, they SOLD us Dromar. | |
Never teach a pig to sing. It's a waste of time and it annoys the pig.
Champion of the Blink Dog. | |
|
Bert the Troll
Commander
3964 Posts
Adelaide
| | 11/09/2005 8:04 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Felagund
quote:
Originally posted by Bert the Troll
I`m sorry, I have seen this agurement a few times, and I fail to understand it. I dont see making a change leading to changing everything. Cases in point. Changing from tiles to maps, changing from 12 minis limit to 8 mini limit. These things havent opened flood gates of massive changes.
Change happens. IMO, preventing/auguring aginst changes from occuring purely becasue you are worried that it might lead to other changes doesn't really address the need.
The change to maps and 8 figure limit are proactive changes intended to make the game better. They represent a one-time change in the rules with the intent of being permanent.
To go back and overhaul the stats of previous minis would be a retroactive change. While the intent would still be to improve gameplay, this is a neverending task. With each new set, more of the older minis would have to be restatted in order to remain competetive.
The difference in my mind is that I see it more of a once off with save=10. I do not advocate going and changing a lot of old stats. It effects a narrow range of minis (some huges). It's also not really that much an overhaul to remove one set of critea of a easily identified group.
quote:
I'd rather have the developers working on cool new minis than spending all their time tweaking the old ones.
Heck yes. Though again its bringing the same arugement that one change will lead to many which is something I dont agree with.
Equally so, I wouldnt want r&d to be making each new set with the intent of making older minis useless. When we get more epics, the difference in playability is going to be increase.
quote:
Furthermore, they have set a precedent of not changing the stats of previously existing minis. If they broke this precedent by changing save=10, why should they not go back to fix every other mini with sub-par stats?
Ummm I dont think you can set a precedent in the negative (ie not doing something). ;)
They have shown that they will change rules though. And didnt they change one mini, a kobold or something? Guy's clarification & offical errata page shows almost twnety additions/subtractions to the wording of abilities (eg Drow cleric doesnt state negative damage on card, Halfling Wizard casts spells not special abilkities despite whats on the card).
Why should they not change/fix everything else with subpar stats... Well you have already given a lot of reasons why not, I am one who doesn't want more cards issued and it would be a nightmare to kep track off.
However, this save being equal to level in Epic/Extreme formats I see as an easy to track change that will make the overall game better.
quote:
Originally posted by Bert the Troll
For me it is that this figure is not worth the points, and that it doesnt make 'gaming sense' that younger dragons save better than older dragons.
"not worth the points" = not playable. As far as making "gaming sense," it makes perfect sense in DDM. The saves are printed right there on the card. If you're going to try to make the RPG mesh perfectly with DDM, you're just going to be disappointed. No, it doesn't make sense that the LSD has a better save than the HGD. Nor does it make sense that an Orc Sergeant can command a Nightwalker. The skirmish game puts these "RPG logic" concerns behind the concern of balance. Which is a good thing, imo.
[/quote]
I agree with your points. Though 'The saves are printed right there on the card.' doesnt actually mean very much to the debate.
The designers dont throw everything RPG out when they design mins either. I cant easily imagine them making a CE dwalf that has more spells than Elminster. Or a golem that is a commander. etc.
They try for a balance of both.
Also imo, "not worth the points" = not playable is only true for the hardline tier one players. I play with plenty of bands thay include figures that are playable but not worth thier points.
| |
"Mutton yesterday, mutton today, and blimey, if it don't look like mutton again tomorrer." Bert the Troll - The Hobbit
Semi-Secret sig business: "In the age of the internet attaching a famous name to your personal opinion to give more weight to it is a very valid strategy." - Benjamin Franklin
Champion of Epic Lolth, Orcus, & Demogorgon and bring us Asmodeus! | |
| DDM Australian Champion 2005
psistef
Underboss
1572 Posts
| | 11/09/2005 8:17 PM |
| I don't think Save=10 is a problem.
That is all, I shall leave now in accordance to the rules. | |
Champion of the Prestige Class where mages focus on telekenesis and start throwing people into the ceiling and uber stuff like that.
Desirer of a Commander Effect in CG that grants Sidestep to followers with a ranged attack. | |
|
Pauper
Sergeant
508 Posts
| | 11/09/2005 10:22 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by infernis
My humble opinion, assuming that there even is a problem, is that the "problem" is only in the Huge, Giants of Legend pieces above lvl 10. The result would be that those pieces will be used less than the new epic pieces.
I think this is a good summary of the problem that Gnolaum and those like him believe exists.
Part of the reason I don't agree is that, when you look at the list of figures that have Save=10, you find an awful lot of figures that are among the most powerful and popular 500 point figures in play: Huge Red Dragon, Huge Gold Dragon, Nightwalker, Storm Giant, Fomorian, Fiendish T-Rex. If Save=10 was such a problem for these figures, one would have expected them to have rotated out of play well before now since, as Chris Groves notes, there are already numerous figures with saves higher than 10 in the game which have been produced after GoL, as well as plenty of figs with steadily increasing save DCs on their abilities.
For instance, take the Trumpet Archon and its Trumpet's Peal ability. In theory, you can force a Fiendish T-Rex or Huge Red to rout off the board after taking only five points of damage by using this ability. In practice, it's not that easy, given the presence of commanders as well as the difficulty LG has in damaging specific opponents at range.
Similarly, if DC17 is such a problem for Save=10 units to have to deal with, one might expect that Thri-Kreen Barbarians, with their DC17 Paralyzing Bite, would be terrorizing the 500 point battlefield, paralyzing and allowing easy destruction of figures three or four times his cost. Have you noticed this? I haven't.
quote:
The only real errata WOTC made on any figure was when they banned the Drider Sorceror. They didn't change it. They just banned it.
Well, 'errata' isn't really intended to fix design issues on a figure, it's intended to fix printing or manufacturing errors, or clean up rules ambiguities. In that sense, WotC has issued plenty of errata - there are 29 figures that currently have errata, including the Drider Sorcerer. Most of these fix specific problems, such as the Azer (though |
|
|
|
|
|