Is the 15 unit limit a good design choice?

I think that this was enouph, please stay on topic with actual discussion.

 

just bringing it up again

 

@dhellfox I think that actively tries to hurt lists using Irregular orders while doing very little to lists that stock up on cheap, plentiful, regulars like Volunteers or Kuang Shi. It seems to actively select for certain armies is what I mean while for other armies more than Tactical Window does.

 

Yeah sure, but then you still stop your order cap from falling assuming you brought over 15.

I would have preferred a review of how many points an order costs, but that's a conversation I don't think CB is ready to have yet.

 

There has been a tourney in Munich, where you could "nominate" a limited number of unis each turn, to contribute their orders to the order pool for their respective combat group...that kept orders limited while players could still build their lists as they wished. Plus: this systems allowed for some tactical thinkig :)

Another approach could be to buy orders seperate from units...say you could field 20 units but only buy up to 15 orders...maybe even maiking additonal orders ever more expensive.

There are some creative ideas out there...players are aware of the order spam (for a better word) and though of possible workarounds. Especially the first idea above was pretty neat as you got the best of both worlds.

 

if any death (or null, wasn't clear on that part) reduces the total count by 1 how does that prevent the order limit from falling?

 

irregulars hurt orders the same way it does for 15- lists. i thought of it that way so a hoard list doesn't take 15 regulars then filled it with as many irregulars as possible (as their orders don't count anyway if order generation count units was selected by player or counts regs first) with no consequences beyond their null/death state.

edit: also dosnt CHA have wallace's inspiring leadership to counter irreg state anyway?

 

CHA have Wallace

Hassassin or Dahshat dont

 

EEEhhhh... not quite true. That player "mysteriously" switched to CA when Sheeskin got Fat2 and Taiga Creatures. Funny how that rule works. :-)

 

This echoes my sentiment on this matter. I don't quite like the way CB went about reinforcing the use of less models, but I like the fact we are getting incentivized to play less models.

I think this goes hand-in-hand with the points cost reduction on heavy models. This way people are supposed to put some proper elite models in their lists and give them support of low point chaff. Instead of going heavy handed on the cheap chaff and using only one or two heavy hitters as it seems to have been the norm.

I dig it. It isn't perfect, but life seldom is.

 

Have we unpacked why players are generally more accepting of AVA limits, which are also an arbitrary number cap to prevent over-exploitation of competitive profiles and enforce diversity?

Could it be because people like it when background and rules are reflective of each other, as is the case with characters all being AVA1?

 

Speaking for myself, I would have had less a problem, if the AVA of the problematic profiles were lowered instead of that 15 Model limit. Why? Because I can still play 16+ Orders but would have to live with weaker profiles in the upper end.

But then again, just raising their points cost would have had a similar effect, without limiting playstyles that much.

 

He still played Haqq quite often after that and I want to say that most of the rankings was got from Haqq prior to Shas 2.0, though if I had remembered the other armies he played I would have mentioned CA as well for the sake of completion. While I'm uncomfortable discussing my friends behind their back so to speak, I do want to note that it's interesting how his Haqq and CA played fairly similarly when he brought his A-game (which can basically be summed up by a "FAT2 and their band of merry throw-away low lives" - everything selected to be cheap, but effective, including hacking and secondary heavy lifters).

 

And it's best to not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

 

It is relevant that many of the worst offenders (volunteers, morlocks, grunts, daylami, among others) are AVA total, and those that aren't have high enough AVA (taighas spring to mind) as to be part of the problem.

Since this is supposed to be a special operations simulation, what if these irregular troops were more constrained than the line infantry - would that feel better for a similar effect?

 

I'm not sure AVA is a can of worm CB want to open, a lot of peoples would howl if they suddenly find themselves with a whole bunch of models they can't use anymore because they can only field 2 or 3 instead of as many as they can.

I know proxy rules and all that but yeah.

 

As @ijw pointed out in a (since deleted) FB post, reducing AVA is a bit of a non-starter, since many units are already AVA 1, perhaps 2, and even if split AVA between different versions of the same kind of troop (i.e. the limited on Dogwarriors, no matter the flavor) were feasible, it goes against the goal of greater simplicity.

 

I'm fine with it, even when playing Ariadna I never went over 15 models