Fanaticus Forum  

Go Back   Fanaticus Forum > Rules > v2.2+

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 05-01-2012, 03:44 PM
Xavi Xavi is offline
Centurion
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 269
Default

Impressions on 2.2+ second BETA

Just read the new beta and here come a few impressions and questions.
EDIT: read the thread now that I finished the damn report for tomorrow's meeting. Sems that the Kn/Bw one was addressed already. The others have not.

RELEASE NOTES.
Really nice to have those to speed things up. Some explanations on some of the changes would still be great. Otherwise they might sound totally random to the people outside the writing team.

1. Rear support for spears:
GREAT!!!! Seems my nagging insistence got results in the end I think it is a definitive improvement. I would say that ANY foot element should have a +1 for being rear-supported against the same type of elements, but hey.


2. Combat results
Knights no longer killed by Bw contacted in first turn.
Need to playtest this. Unsure of implications. It seems that Knights got the long straw in 2.2+, since all the elements that used to be dangerous to them got a downgrade in power vs them (bow, pike, ellies).


3. Single elements conform
Can cause all kind of tricky movement issues. With the extra movement ranges it will be extra easy to nail troops (close their door) fairly easily.


4. New troop types.
Still unconvinced that raiders and light spears are needed.

If Raider want to be there I would make them not BGo-affected (extra good Ax even if slower) and have the same results as Bd. As they are now they are just the worst of worse world: they are worse than Bd in GGo and as bad as Bd in BGo so no sensible romand 3Bd would EVER enter BGo. As such I feel like the intention of the new element type is beaten before it hits the tables. If 3Bd gets affected In cannot see why 4Ax cannot be treated exactly the same.

I am inconclusive on Pavisiers and cataphracts, but OK if you want them around. If I could chose between 4Kn and 3Kn I would go for 3Kn, though.


ACTUAL 2.2+ PLAYSHEET

5. Board Size
Seems my suggestion for a less strong wording in board size MANDATING 30 inch boards has been ignored. I guess we will not see 2.2+ in Spain then.


6. Terrain
Littoral armies would be better having Littoral as optional as already commented.


7. Moving into contact. Single element conform.
As mentioned above, can cause some dirty tricks.
A way to prevent it would be to make the align NOT be “immediately” but at the ened of the movement phase. That would prevent flank charges being so easy to pull. Otherwise the result might be dodgy.


8. New river rules (at least I think they are new)
Sounds like a definitive improvement. Well done!

Question: is a river Bad going?


9. Combat factors.
Maybe Scythed chariot should be downgraded to +3 +3 since no overlaps apply. Otherwise it can become too powerful.


10. Rear Support
- Pk , all Spears and warband should get +1 rear support vs SCh. Smashing yourself against a porcupine is not a fantastic idea, generally. They act like stupid knights, after all.

- I would make all foot (and maybe even mounted) get a +1 for rear support against most stuff, but that is me. Would make the romans less moronic in Cannae.


11. Combat results table
- As said, could someone explain why knights got all their enemies nerfed? Why not Bw QK anymore?

- No idea about if the Cm factors are good or not. The new element is just weird. I think treating it like Cv that ignores dunes (+3 +3) would be OK and much simpler. But I do not put a strong position here.

12. Recoil
- Why the change in shot in the rear? What was wrong with the old version?

- I like the fact that rear elements are not destroyed.



I eagerly await your comments/answers


Cheers,
Xavi

Last edited by Xavi; 05-01-2012 at 05:27 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 05-01-2012, 04:26 PM
David Schlanger's Avatar
David Schlanger David Schlanger is offline
Prefect
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Glenwood, MD
Posts: 800
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xavi View Post
5. Board Size
Seems my suggestion for a less strong wording in board size MANDATING 30 inch boards has been ignored. I guess we will not see 2.2+ in Spain then.

Previously it was mentioned that there would be some additional language in the line edits that allowed for the choice of another board size. The line edits are not out yet.

30" is the board size for which we have been designing the rules changes, if you choose to play another size - that is fine. You don't need our permission to do so.

I am not sure if the above is a kind of ultimatum, but I am less inclined to take the time to respond to your questions and comments when you preface them by saying you haven't read the 2.2+ threads. And if we are stuck on board size to the point that all of Spain will not give 2.2+ a chance if 30" square is the prescribed size, why should I take the time to address your points?

DS

Last edited by David Schlanger; 05-01-2012 at 04:34 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 05-01-2012, 05:09 PM
Xavi Xavi is offline
Centurion
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 269
Default

I have heard quite a lot of the lead players complain about the 30 board. This is why I was advocating a 24 board option. Trying to convince people to test it when they feel they have to redesign all their boards straight puts them on a hostile footing. Been there, been told that. And as a matter of fact, tournament tables (and the tables of pubs, for that matter) around here are 24" wide, not 30 in a lot of places. Trying to sell a product when people think that they have to change a lot of things is much more difficult. They are seeing it already as if 2.2+ changed the composition of most armies ebcause of the table issue (they see the table as part of their collection, I suppose). So 2.2+ will not be an easy sell around here if 24 boards are not suggested as an option. been saying that for a while now.


Had no time to read the thread YET but wanted to share my opinion on the actual text. Feel free to ignore it.

EDIT: edited the previous message. It seems that Kn/Bw was already adressed. The other points do not seem to have been covered, though.

Last edited by Xavi; 05-01-2012 at 05:30 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 05-01-2012, 05:22 PM
Tony Aguilar's Avatar
Tony Aguilar Tony Aguilar is online now
Augustus
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Gainesville, FL
Posts: 1,575
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Schlanger View Post
I am not sure if the above is a kind of ultimatum, but I am less inclined to take the time to respond to your questions and comments when you preface them by saying you haven't read the 2.2+ threads. And if we are stuck on board size to the point that all of Spain will not give 2.2+ a chance if 30" square is the prescribed size, why should I take the time to address your points?

DS
I also find it curious that when invited to joint the GM Forum you said you didn't have time for it, yet now you have time to bring up all of these things which had you joined the forum would have been addressed/explained to you.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 05-01-2012, 05:41 PM
Xavi Xavi is offline
Centurion
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 269
Default

I have more time now than when the offer was made 2 months ago, when it seemed that my firm was about to close its doors. But well, ok.

So only the people implied in the development can know why the changes are there and the rest of the world have to take them at face value. I do not buy that. I would not be buying that if I were in the developer forum either. One of the main things when you release a new product is sell it.

But well, I will leave it here. Seems I am not very welcomed

Cheers,
Xavi

Last edited by Xavi; 05-01-2012 at 05:44 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 05-01-2012, 06:31 PM
pozanias's Avatar
pozanias pozanias is offline
Primus Pilus
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Red Hook, New York, USA
Posts: 580
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xavi View Post
I have more time now than when the offer was made 2 months ago, when it seemed that my firm was about to close its doors. But well, ok.

So only the people implied in the development can know why the changes are there and the rest of the world have to take them at face value. I do not buy that. I would not be buying that if I were in the developer forum either. One of the main things when you release a new product is sell it.

But well, I will leave it here. Seems I am not very welcomed

Cheers,
Xavi
Xavi,

I don't think its that you are not welcome. I for one certainly appreciate your efforts.

I think the frustration you see is the result of a very long and tiresome process to get 2.2+ from concept to release. There is a lot of debate that you miss -- and by the time it gets to the general Beta testing the group is mostly looking for playtesting and findings. Not so much more debate. Or to put it differently, we are looking for flaws in the rules not differences of opinions. Of course other opinions are always helpful -- but there may not be much more energy to have a thorough discussion about them now. I can only say that I know Dave is tracking all the ideas that have been mentioned here on Fanaticus for future discussion (if they haven't already been discussed).

We are working on a "Designer's Notes" to be released with 2.2+ (remember, this is still just Beta). Redwilde has taken the lead on that, but its a lot of work and will take some time.

Remember, we're not selling these rules. This is all being done simply as an attempt to create a viable alternative for those DBA players not happy with the development of 3.0.

As for the 30" board size being a deal-breaker for Spain, remember that we already posted that when the official 2.2+ line edits are released, there will be language "allowing" 24" boards. What you see now is just a playsheet to facilitate playtesting.
__________________
Mark Pozniak
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 05-01-2012, 07:20 PM
david kuijt's Avatar
david kuijt david kuijt is online now
Propraetor
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Gaithersburg
Posts: 2,288
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xavi View Post
But well, I will leave it here. Seems I am not very welcomed
Try and see it from our side, Xavi. Most of the points you are making are ones you have made before. You want to revisit issues that have long-since been largely decided. Why do you want to revisit them? Because you have been very busy with the real world, and you didn't have the time to get involved two months ago, four months ago, five months ago.

There's nothing wrong with that. We all have real-world issues that bite us. Nobody is criticizing you for having real world issues.

But look at it from our side. We have spent an awful lot of energy working on this project. Nobody is very interested in starting back from square one. Or even discussing square one. And the old issues you aren't happy about -- the existence of Raiders, 30" boards, 2/3 of the rest you mention -- all of those are ones we have talked about extensively, over hundreds of email messages, both inside the GMlist and outside here on the forum, talking with lots of people.

We are proceeding on a number of things that make you happy. And we are not likely to change our direction on some other things that you aren't sure about. Not unless you come up with something we haven't considered. Our focus is to make the best system we can. But we knew going into the process that everyone had a different vision of what "best" looked like.

I understand completely if you haven't had the time to look at all the forum discussions on this issue over the last three months. But I ask you to be a little understanding if many of us don't have the time to re-justify decisions that were made months and months ago to you now. We've got our own real-world issues as well. I'm in the last two weeks of the semester now; I'm giving four Final Exams next week and I have to do an enormous amount of class prep to help my students review in study for those exams. Other people have their own issues.

The Beta is nearly done -- if you want to give feedback, we'd love to hear it. But if you are re-examining issues that are largely set in stone now, don't be surprised if we aren't interested in changing them. We've put a lot of thought and playtesting into what we have now, and we think (by and large) that it is a very good system.

We think that if you try 2.2+, you will like it. And if you don't like it, or you aren't willing to try it, we hope you will like whatever you do end up playing.


DK
__________________
DK

2.2+ is where it's at.

V2.2+ final version playsheet available at: http://www.wadbag.com/V2.2+/

Last edited by david kuijt; 05-01-2012 at 07:22 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 05-02-2012, 11:52 AM
ferrency's Avatar
ferrency ferrency is offline
Praetor
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 1,139
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xavi View Post
5. Board Size
Seems my suggestion for a less strong wording in board size MANDATING 30 inch boards has been ignored. I guess we will not see 2.2+ in Spain then.
This is from a working draft of some designer notes:
Quote:
Why not support multiple board sizes in the rules?

Opponents or tournament organizers who agree to use a different board size are welcome to do so. This is what has been done for years with 30"/48" boards in areas where they are used.

However, the rules must declare what should be done when players don't agree on what board size to use. This requires either a rule to determine which board size to use every time there's a conflict, or more simply, a single standard board size. It was decided that supporting a single board size is the simplest way to solve this, and all of the designers prefer to play on the 30"/48" board size.
Nobody wants to force you to play on 30" boards if you and your opponent prefer 24". However, the rules must declare what happens when the two opponents disagree on what size to use.

Alan
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 05-05-2012, 10:47 AM
dicemanrick's Avatar
dicemanrick dicemanrick is offline
Centurion
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 495
Default

Xavi:

For years we were the only ones running straight 2.2 on the "mandated" 24inch boards...the reverse of your situation!

Spain can mandate 24s at all events and you won't get a complaint from anyone here.

As Alan mentions above, the board size is not a game-breaker.

Enjoy the game. and screw the board size problem!
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 05-06-2012, 08:30 PM
Lobotomy's Avatar
Lobotomy Lobotomy is offline
Centurion
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 466
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dicemanrick View Post
Xavi:

For years we were the only ones running straight 2.2 on the "mandated" 24inch boards...the reverse of your situation!

Spain can mandate 24s at all events and you won't get a complaint from anyone here.

As Alan mentions above, the board size is not a game-breaker.

Enjoy the game. and screw the board size problem!
Yes, it is not the size of the board but the use you can make of it.
__________________
Lobotomy
Pittsburgh, PA

Quote: Originally Posted by david kuijt
"Larry's got a good point....And you know, that doesn't happen very often."

Larry, there is your new tag line. -- Will M.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:58 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.