Author |
Message |
|
|
|
Advert
|
Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
- No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
- Times and dates in your local timezone.
- Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
- Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
- Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now. |
|
|
2006/12/01 16:43:40
Subject: RE: Is 1500 more balanced than 1850?
|
|
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
beef: I contend that the advantage it would have given me is far less than the advantage he would have had if I was forced to use the reserves rules vs his already fully dployed army. The advantage of me using the "Pick and Choose" reserves method though is definately not to be scoffed at. Come turn 3 when he gets his termis nice and close I move on with a Demolisher that was previously invulnerable because it's been sitting off table. The ONLY disadvantage to reserves is the fact that you don't know what turn your units will arrive. Once that gamble has been taken out of the mix Reserves actually becomes pretty powerfull. Being able to deploy, move, and/or fire in one turn after your opponent has already commited is rad to the max to put it another way.
So I don't begrudge him, and I hope he doesn't think poorly of me.
|
|
|
|
|
2006/12/02 02:58:03
Subject: RE: Is 1500 more balanced than 1850?
|
|
Fresh-Faced New User
|
It should be done like the old days, your Hq v mine, whoever wins, wins the game. forget 40k in 49min this is 40K in 4 min
|
The sword is a weapon for killing . . . . . . the art of the sword . . . . . .is the art of killing . . No matter what fancy word . . . . . you use . . . . . . or what titles . . . . .you put to it . . . . that is the only truth . . |
|
|
|
2006/12/02 06:43:27
Subject: RE: Is 1500 more balanced than 1850?
|
|
Dakka Veteran
the spire of angels
|
it is a points based game rather it be 1500 or 1850. the legality of the list is all that maters, as anybody can tweek a list at whatever points values you use in fact of point a guard amry can have more heavy weapons than a more "elite" force like marines at a lower points level. making guard actually more effective.
|
"victory needs no explanation, defeat allows none" |
|
|
|
2006/12/02 07:56:24
Subject: RE: Is 1500 more balanced than 1850?
|
|
Stern Iron Priest with Thrall Bodyguard
The drinking halls of Fenris or South London as its sometimes called
|
yes some armies fare better at various points and variious board sizes. 4x4 is the best size for my wolves,
|
R.I.P Amy Winehouse
|
|
|
|
2006/12/02 08:39:11
Subject: RE: Is 1500 more balanced than 1850?
|
|
Dakka Veteran
Pirate Ship Revenge
|
Hey beef we should play each other. I'm like you. I let people get away with murder. Next time you're near Canada drop by.
|
|
|
|
|
2006/12/02 12:04:03
Subject: RE: Is 1500 more balanced than 1850?
|
|
Stern Iron Priest with Thrall Bodyguard
The drinking halls of Fenris or South London as its sometimes called
|
I will bare that in mind, thanks for the offer. Next time your in london give me a shout, maybe we can get a 10000 point mega game in with alot of proxy , unpainted or based models and make some of the rules up as we go.
|
R.I.P Amy Winehouse
|
|
|
|
|