Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 64 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Space Wolves 3.0 Approved

 Post subject: Re: Space Wolves 3.0 Approved
PostPosted: Thu Mar 10, 2016 11:15 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2013 1:20 pm
Posts: 696
Location: Sweden
Shoel wrote:
Just a crazy idea for blood claws. How about letting them activate even if broken. But only if they could engage an enemy and only to engage that enemy in CC with atleast one stand.
Most likely breakes too many rules to ever get approved. But I figure it would illustrate the way bloodclaws react to an overwhelming enemy (ie charge in, casulties be damned).
They would most likely loose the combat, but atleast you had an extra activation and you perhaps placed a blastmarker.
Thanks for the input! :)
Right now your my gut tells me that your suggestion just is "crazy" ;) Just too many special conditions for a rule. To be able to engage in CC they need to be within 15 cm and if broken they would most likely been destroyed if they ended their movement there so the enemy has to follow up...
Anyway, I am open to suggestions on how to make the Unblooded rule "better" or at last more fitting the fluff.

If you have any other suggestions or crazy ideas please share :)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Space Wolves 3.0 Approved
PostPosted: Fri Mar 11, 2016 9:39 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 10:34 am
Posts: 139
Location: Sweden
I'm full of crazy ideas, thanks for indulging me :-)

_________________
/Shoel
My Painting Corner


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Space Wolves 3.0 Approved
PostPosted: Sun Mar 13, 2016 11:23 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:24 am
Posts: 4499
Location: Melbourne, Australia
mordoten wrote:
Dobbsy wrote:
uvenlord wrote:
Ok, another point we disagree on :)

Yep. Seems there'll be a lot as you have your view and I've made my points so I'll move on and save us the usual time-intensive circular arguments here on Taccomms. ;)

Cheers



So tou don't think it's productive to answer UvenLords question about thoose situation with FF-assaults that he mentioned?

No. I've stated my case and Uvenlord clearly wants the unit buffed, so I see no point in continuing to debate this. I'll let the AC continue doing what he's doing.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Space Wolves 3.0 Approved
PostPosted: Mon Mar 14, 2016 12:46 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 9:35 am
Posts: 3322
Location: Norrköping, Sweden.
Yes, thats probably best.

_________________
https://epic40ksweden.wordpress.com/

"You have a right to be offended" - Steve Hughes
"Your feelings are hurting my thoughts" - Aron Flam


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Space Wolves 3.0 Approved
PostPosted: Fri Apr 15, 2016 7:49 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2013 1:20 pm
Posts: 696
Location: Sweden
Made some "small" changes to the playtest version.
Removed some of the options on the Great Company, so now it can only take Gray Hunters if it wants more marines. Never really liked the mixed formation and the only upgrade I ever took was the Bloodclaws since they were cheaper. Also I find no fluf reason for them to be able to mix more then other chapters.

Made the Thunderwolves a stand alone formation. Reasons is a mix of things, mainly I have a hard time getting the cost right. Removing them makes it easier. Also I wanted to get away from the Unblooded rule and be able to restrict the use of them...

Please comment if this goes in the wrong direction, right now it feels quite solid so I might start to actually make reports and see if we can get these changes through in a couple of months.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Space Wolves 3.0 Approved
PostPosted: Fri Apr 15, 2016 12:35 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 01, 2014 2:48 am
Posts: 857
Location: NJ, USA
Sounds good to me. A little feedback for what it's worth.

If the Great Companies can't take long fangs any longer, I think that 25 pt decrease becomes even more viable. Adding long fangs was one of the main ways to give the formation shooting and now that option is gone.

Is there a test stat line for the thunderwolves? I didn't see any on the PDFs or the thread but I may have missed it.

Thanks for the hard work on the list.

_________________
Grey Knights AC: viewtopic.php?f=130&t=33750

Tau AC:
viewforum.php?

The man in black fled across the desert, and the gunslinger followed.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Space Wolves 3.0 Approved
PostPosted: Fri Apr 15, 2016 3:24 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2013 1:20 pm
Posts: 696
Location: Sweden
Thanks for the feedback, please try the list a couple of times and come back with more :)

gunslinger007 wrote:
Is there a test stat line for the thunderwolves? I didn't see any on the PDFs or the thread but I may have missed it.
It's in the playtest pdf in the first post.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Space Wolves 3.0 Approved
PostPosted: Fri Apr 15, 2016 3:57 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 01, 2014 2:48 am
Posts: 857
Location: NJ, USA
Thanks!

_________________
Grey Knights AC: viewtopic.php?f=130&t=33750

Tau AC:
viewforum.php?

The man in black fled across the desert, and the gunslinger followed.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Space Wolves 3.0 Approved
PostPosted: Sun Apr 17, 2016 10:46 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:24 am
Posts: 4499
Location: Melbourne, Australia
uvenlord wrote:
Made some "small" changes to the playtest version.
Removed some of the options on the Great Company, so now it can only take Gray Hunters if it wants more marines. Never really liked the mixed formation and the only upgrade I ever took was the Bloodclaws since they were cheaper. Also I find no fluf reason for them to be able to mix more then other chapters.

Made the Thunderwolves a stand alone formation. Reasons is a mix of things, mainly I have a hard time getting the cost right. Removing them makes it easier. Also I wanted to get away from the Unblooded rule and be able to restrict the use of them...

Please comment if this goes in the wrong direction, right now it feels quite solid so I might start to actually make reports and see if we can get these changes through in a couple of months.

Should I bother...?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Space Wolves 3.0 Approved
PostPosted: Sun Apr 17, 2016 11:22 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2013 1:20 pm
Posts: 696
Location: Sweden
Dobbsy wrote:
uvenlord wrote:
Made some "small" changes to the playtest version.
Removed some of the options on the Great Company, so now it can only take Gray Hunters if it wants more marines. Never really liked the mixed formation and the only upgrade I ever took was the Bloodclaws since they were cheaper. Also I find no fluf reason for them to be able to mix more then other chapters.

Made the Thunderwolves a stand alone formation. Reasons is a mix of things, mainly I have a hard time getting the cost right. Removing them makes it easier. Also I wanted to get away from the Unblooded rule and be able to restrict the use of them...

Please comment if this goes in the wrong direction, right now it feels quite solid so I might start to actually make reports and see if we can get these changes through in a couple of months.

Should I bother...?
Well, you bothered to ask...


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Space Wolves 3.0 Approved
PostPosted: Sun Apr 17, 2016 2:26 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:24 am
Posts: 4499
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Yeah, but so far my feedback hasn't really, by some, been taken into account on the basis of "Oh you're the old sub-AC you'll never be happy," so I'm a little hesitant about providing feedback because, well, my view apparently is "tainted."

Anyway, here's my feedback.

Changing the Great Company and the structure is a big deal and will fundamentally change the list, its character and design.

If you don't like the mixed formation, don't take it. Let those who do, continue to use it. It won't effect how you play it - just the way the list is written on a page - but it will effect others' chosen style of play and army builds. If you personally want to just use Grey Hunters as the add-on, just play it that way. You mentioned that you only ever took Bloodclaws as the upgrade because it was cheap. I don't and I'm betting others don't either. Please don't affect how we play the list.

You're also removing the requirements of "You may only take as many Hunting Packs as you have Great Companies" which just looks like you just want to be able cram as many Wolf Guard or Long Fang packs as you can fit in when you want to - just like the Codex list allows.

The requirement was designed to stop the spamming of the more powerful packs and force you to take the packs with the most numerous troop type - the Grey Hunters - which opens up access to those more powerful packs without them becoming the most numerous.

Also, it's to give the list more character so it didn't mirror the Codex list.

Another issue with these changes is that you'll end up with people taking lists with just a single Great Company (because they have to) and every other pack type in multiples because they are "better" packs performance or price-wise - just like the Codex list.

i.e
Great Company + Grey Hunters 350
Wolf Guard + Thunderhawk 525
Wolf Guard + Thunderhawk 525
Long Fangs 300
Blood Claws 225
Blood Claws 225
Fenrisian Wolves 150
Fenrisian Wolves 150
Fenrisian Wolves 150
Wolf Lord 50

plus sundry...

Add to this the cheaper air assets (I noticed they went down by 25 points each) and you've increased the power of the list immensely. Chuck in the Warhounds as you're wanting to and it's starting to push the boundary of kitchen sink. Better troops in engagements plus now all the shooty you need.

Sure, change a few things and add some others to make your own mark on the list. I get it. There's a couple or so of your proposed changes I actually don't mind trying out, but the change to the GC and the way the list is structured is not one of them.

Right now, looking at 3.3 I see a future Codex+ list that's going to be a dulled down version of an innovative list. You mention 3.3 seems solid, and that's probably true - it's more like the Codex list.

Sadly, I'm not keen to playtest SW 3.3 because why would I need to? I can just use Grey-painted marines with the Codex list as there's not a massive difference apart from a few unit types/stats.

Can I ask why you want to implement so much change to a newly approved list so soon? Were you unhappy with the list as it stood - even the original?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Space Wolves 3.0 Approved
PostPosted: Sun Apr 17, 2016 3:50 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2013 1:20 pm
Posts: 696
Location: Sweden
Dobbsy wrote:
Yeah, but so far my feedback hasn't really, by some, been taken into account on the basis of "Oh you're the old sub-AC you'll never be happy," so I'm a little hesitant about providing feedback because, well, my view apparently is "tainted."
Well I try to consider your proposals but you do sound like the "old AC that will never be happy" some of the times. The main difference between us is that I like Codex and you do not. Most of the issues you have put forward so far has been that the list is moving towards gray codex and you feel that that is a bad thing and I do not. I still wish them to have a little flavour but every single unit does not need t be different.
Also you have said several times that you will quit this development process, you left the SP AC post without a word more then a year ago. You also said that you have not played epic in a year or so... That's part of the reasons I have chosen to change things against your liking.
You could always play with the Epic UK version, it is very close to the one before approvement?

Dobbsy wrote:
Changing the Great Company and the structure is a big deal and will fundamentally change the list, its character and design.

If you don't like the mixed formation, don't take it. Let those who do, continue to use it. It won't effect how you play it - just the way the list is written on a page - but it will effect others' chosen style of play and army builds. If you personally want to just use Grey Hunters as the add-on, just play it that way. You mentioned that you only ever took Bloodclaws as the upgrade because it was cheap. I don't and I'm betting others don't either. Please don't affect how we play the list.
Basically I think this will make people take one less Great Co then they do now and open up those points for something else. Is that so bad?
What upgrades do you take and for what reason? Also why should they have mixed formations? They have to my knowledge not been able to have it in 40k...

Dobbsy wrote:
You're also removing the requirements of "You may only take as many Hunting Packs as you have Great Companies" which just looks like you just want to be able cram as many Wolf Guard or Long Fang packs as you can fit in when you want to - just like the Codex list allows.

The requirement was designed to stop the spamming of the more powerful packs and force you to take the packs with the most numerous troop type - the Grey Hunters - which opens up access to those more powerful packs without them becoming the most numerous.
Se reasons above. I find it hard to believe that people will be spamming Wolf Guards and Long Fangs because of this. Both are expensive units. (And the Long fangs get a nerf in the same update)



Dobbsy wrote:
Another issue with these changes is that you'll end up with people taking lists with just a single Great Company (because they have to) and every other pack type in multiples because they are "better" packs performance or price-wise - just like the Codex list.
You are not obliged to take tacticals in the codex list. Different stuff do different things, what are better then the Great Company?
If the Great Company is useless, like you seems to think, who would want to play with this list if it forces them to take at least two bad units for almost 1/5 of the points.

Dobbsy wrote:
Great Company + Grey Hunters 350
Wolf Guard + Thunderhawk 525
Wolf Guard + Thunderhawk 525
Long Fangs 300
Blood Claws 225
Blood Claws 225
Fenrisian Wolves 150
Fenrisian Wolves 150
Fenrisian Wolves 150
Wolf Lord 50
Do you think it is too good or just an example of a Codex mirror build? I do not understand?

Dobbsy wrote:
Add to this the cheaper air assets (I noticed they went down by 25 points each) and you've increased the power of the list immensely. Chuck in the Warhounds as you're wanting to and it's starting to push the boundary of kitchen sink. Better troops in engagements plus now all the shooty you need.
The thunderhawk was changed before approvement. Have you tried the approved list or is your comments based on the list before that?
Like before, please show a build that is OP or even better make some reports.


Dobbsy wrote:
Sadly, I'm not keen to playtest SW 3.3 because why would I need to? I can just use Grey-painted marines with the Codex list as there's not a massive difference apart from a few unit types/stats.
Gray Hunters, Long Fangs, Blood Claws, Fenrisian Wolves, Wolf Scouts, Dropping Terminators, Unblooded, Pack Mentality. Sure the vehicles is the same but 8 out of 8 infantry is different in some way...
This is to me the old grumpy AC that will never be satisfied, sorry. :-\


Dobbsy wrote:
Can I ask why you want to implement so much change to a newly approved list so soon? Were you unhappy with the list as it stood - even the original?
These are proposed changes that I have wanted to do in some way from the start. I was not happy with the list when it was approved but were not allowed to make changes unless I collected 18 more reports.
If things go as I please, there will be a discussion like this about them and we will see what gets changed and what will stay the same.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Space Wolves 3.0 Approved
PostPosted: Mon Apr 18, 2016 4:24 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 8:06 am
Posts: 264
Uvenlord:

Have you considered starting fresh with a different Space Wolf list whose theme is more to what you want to see? (While leaving this one's theme as is.) Given the nature of the Space Wolves, there is good conceptual reason to do so.

Arny lists were never meant to be faction lists. Instead they were intended to be themed around how the factions fought in specific roles or in specific campaigns. (The current Dark Angel list, for example, seems like it is supposed to reflect how the Dark Angels fight....... only when they have tracked down a member of the fallen.)

The Space Wolves generally fight with the doctrine that each Great Company operates as an independant army. Each has its own staff and support and even has its own fleet. In addition, the Bloodclaw/Grey Hunter/Long Fang troops are not just marines with different training, as in codex chapers, but represent a Space Wolve's lifestage.

The approved list represents all of this beautifully. At its core is the Great Company, representing the heart of an independant army with their various life stages banded together with their "pack mentaility". To this you add the support packs that run alongside the core pack.

Do you want more support packs? You can get them! But if you want the support packs of another independant army traveling in its own fleet, then the other army has to be there. And each of these armies are more "pack" with themselves than they are with you; whether they are your chapter-mates or not. Thus, if you want more specialists, you have to buy another Great Company.

There is a good reason to have another list, with the Order of Batle that works the way you want. What if the Wolves are fighting as part of a larger Imperial Marine Army? And what if some bookish git like Roboute Guilliman is in charge? He could have several Great Companies under his overall command, and might very well reassign units as he sees fit to support is overall strategy. (He probably would; self-righteous git. Oh, is that my outside voice?) He'd be puling support troops away from their core without regard to "pack" mentality. Thus, your more codex-like Order of Battle options and no requirement to buy more than one Great Company or to restrict acess to Titans.

The current list is thematic, balanced, approved, and it works. It's also a lot of fun.

The approval process also didn't happen quickly, and undoing an approved list to reshape it into a different theme--then getting that undoing process re-approved--seems like a bit of duplicative effort.

Instead, you could put your effort into building the "piece-of-an-imperial-force" list and we could have a different sort of fun to fit the Wolves fighting in a different role. We also have the Iron Wolf list floating about and needing attention, which represents a specific Great Company. I'd like to see you spend time getting this one across the finish line. Finish up the Iron Wolf list and we could have three styels of fun with one painted army.

-S'Cipio


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Space Wolves 3.0 Approved
PostPosted: Mon Apr 18, 2016 7:30 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2013 1:20 pm
Posts: 696
Location: Sweden
Thanks for the input
Just before I say any anything else, please remember that the playtest version is just a bunch of proposed changes. Nothing is set in stone. I like to have a discussion about them and will change according to what you guys think.

So right now I have two votes on "no change whatsoever" that thinks all my suggestions are bad. :)

It would also be fun to know if you play with the list or if you just want to help out in the development. And especially if you go to tournaments please let me know how it goes.

S'Cipio wrote:
Have you considered starting fresh with a different Space Wolf list whose theme is more to what you want to see? (While leaving this one's theme as is.) Given the nature of the Space Wolves, there is good conceptual reason to do so.
No, we have plenty of SM lists out there. I rather play the current one then start another.

S'Cipio wrote:
Arny lists were never meant to be faction lists. Instead they were intended to be themed around how the factions fought in specific roles or in specific campaigns. (The current Dark Angel list, for example, seems like it is supposed to reflect how the Dark Angels fight....... only when they have tracked down a member of the fallen.)
I know that it might be the intention from the start and still are by some armies but still we have the Codex marines, Steel Legion, Biel-Tan, Necrons etc. They are all generic lists of there respective armies. So I think it is ok to go eather way.

S'Cipio wrote:
The Space Wolves generally fight with the doctrine that each Great Company operates as an independant army. Each has its own staff and support and even has its own fleet. In addition, the Bloodclaw/Grey Hunter/Long Fang troops are not just marines with different training, as in codex chapers, but represent a Space Wolve's lifestage.

The approved list represents all of this beautifully. At its core is the Great Company, representing the heart of an independant army with their various life stages banded together with their "pack mentaility". To this you add the support packs that run alongside the core pack.

Do you want more support packs? You can get them! But if you want the support packs of another independant army traveling in its own fleet, then the other army has to be there. And each of these armies are more "pack" with themselves than they are with you; whether they are your chapter-mates or not. Thus, if you want more specialists, you have to buy another Great Company.
Sure, I agree on this, that's why we need the restriction to always take one Great Company. I see the whole (3000 points or whatever) army as a single independent army of the space wolfs. The change is that the core now can field two scout formations...
It has always been able to field any number of Thunderhawks and Predetors, I just feels that it is weird to have the restriction tighter on the classic space Wolf units...


S'Cipio wrote:
The current list is thematic, balanced, approved, and it works. It's also a lot of fun.
Glad to hear that :)
How would a typical Army that you think is the above look? What opponents have you played against?

S'Cipio wrote:
The approval process also didn't happen quickly, and undoing an approved list to reshape it into a different theme--then getting that undoing process re-approved--seems like a bit of duplicative effort.
Not really sure what you mean, but changing the approved list would not undo anything. If the suggestions isn't ok, then we just keep playing with the current list. The approved version stands until a new one takes its place. See the Death Korps of Krieg for example.

I might look into the Iron Wolves at some point but not right now and not before I know how far I can get with this list...


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Space Wolves 3.0 Approved
PostPosted: Mon Apr 18, 2016 10:34 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:24 am
Posts: 4499
Location: Melbourne, Australia
uvenlord wrote:
Well I try to consider your proposals but you do sound like the "old AC that will never be happy" some of the times.

So, should I be dismissed out of hand? There's a reason I sound unhappy way btw - I'm very passionate about the list. I put in a lot of work and effort getting it to where it was. You've acknowledged the work I did but now you want to erase it. I do want to try some of your proposals as I mentioned and I'm not totally against all your changes, just the Great Company and list structure change.

Would you rather see? Passionate involvement or non-involvement?

uvenlord wrote:
The main difference between us is that I like Codex and you do not. Most of the issues you have put forward so far has been that the list is moving towards gray codex and you feel that that is a bad thing and I do not.

This isn't quite true. I don't dislike Codex, it's just that the SW list isn't supposed to mirror it in the way you're proposing.

uvenlord wrote:

Also you have said several times that you will quit this development process, you left the SP AC post without a word more then a year ago. You also said that you have not played epic in a year or so... That's part of the reasons I have chosen to change things against your liking.

Yes, apologies for my health problems but am I not allowed to come back and get involved? Does a year out mean I have no say?

uvenlord wrote:
Basically I think this will make people take one less Great Co then they do now and open up those points for something else. Is that so bad?

Well as I said, and if you want to see it from a fluff perspective, the most numerous troop type are the Grey Hunters. Other pack types should take a back seat not be given free reign.

uvenlord wrote:

What upgrades do you take and for what reason?

I take all of them in different set ups. I use Long Fangs for supplying firepower in FF assault positions and laying BMs to prep for assaults. I use Blood Claws and Grey Hunters to beef up an assault pack. Grey Hunters supply the FF/CC and BC supply the extra man power for unit numbers and CC.

uvenlord wrote:

Also why should they have mixed formations? They have to my knowledge not been able to have it in 40k...
After the most important reasons of theme and character, it encompasses the abstraction for Epic.
The addition of the other unit types to the GH in the GC is meant to represent how a Great Company develops and be the core of the army all built into one formation. The Hunting packs are there to be side line formations and not be the focus.

uvenlord wrote:
Se reasons above. I find it hard to believe that people will be spamming Wolf Guards and Long Fangs because of this. Both are expensive units. (And the Long fangs get a nerf in the same update)

I'm not just talking about these two unit types. Do people leave out Terminators in a Codex list? My point is that good unit types will almost always be taken. The most important aspect of this is the fluff reason I mentioned earlier. about the most numerous troop type.

uvenlord wrote:
You are not obliged to take tacticals in the codex list. Different stuff do different things, what are better then the Great Company?

And IMHO that is a problem with the list but I'm not going to start that discussion here.

uvenlord wrote:

If the Great Company is useless, like you seems to think,

Let me stop you right there from putting words in my mouth. That isn't what I said. I put "better" in the sentence for a reason - every army has "better unit types" that get picked over the others. I did not say Great Company is useless - they're quite the opposite. The mainstay of the list.

uvenlord wrote:
who would want to play with this list if it forces them to take at least two bad units for almost 1/5 of the points.

Ask all the players who have played the list so far over the years? You don't have to take the expensive upgraded formation of the Great Company.

uvenlord wrote:

Dobbsy wrote:
Great Company + Grey Hunters 350
Wolf Guard + Thunderhawk 525
Wolf Guard + Thunderhawk 525
Long Fangs 300
Blood Claws 225
Blood Claws 225
Fenrisian Wolves 150
<snip>

Do you think it is too good or just an example of a Codex mirror build? I do not understand?

No no, I just used it as a simple example of what lists might look like under this change. More of any other troop type than Grey Hunters - for various reasons of power or cost.

uvenlord wrote:

The thunderhawk was changed before approvement.

True but it's an adjustment I would not have made because of the increase of CC factor for the infantry in the list. That said, it's one I'm keen to use to see how it functions in the building of a list - but in this discussion I'm talking about how it adds to the increase in power you're proposing with these changes.

uvenlord wrote:

Like before, please show a build that is OP or even better make some reports.

I can throw any build up and you won't say it's OP. The point is that removing the restraint of the structure and allowing more of the Hunting pack types to be taken means the restrictions in place to keep the list from becoming OTT will empower the list and push it towards that. Adding to this the inclusion of Warhounds (also a change I'm keen to see how it works) increases the list balance and strength quite a lot when taken as a whole.

uvenlord wrote:

This is to me the old grumpy AC that will never be satisfied, sorry. :-\

And that's disappointing from a development point of view. Discount anyone who disagrees with you? I did ask if I should bother and explained my hesitancy.

uvenlord wrote:

Thanks for the input
Just before I say any anything else, please remember that the playtest version is just a bunch of proposed changes. Nothing is set in stone. I like to have a discussion about them and will change according to what you guys think.

Of course. You asked for feedback about the changes and I presented my concerns and tried to explain my thinking.

uvenlord wrote:

So right now I have two votes on "no change whatsoever" that thinks all my suggestions are bad.

That's where you're wrong. :)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 64 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


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:  


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