Login  |  Register

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - AvogadroTheMole

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5
Art de la Guerre / Re: ADG 101
« on: February 23, 2018, 01:20:40 PM »
Upon further review, I pretty much need to choose between playing on Saturday or Sunday. I think I will choose Sunday and the possibility for multiple games.

Art de la Guerre / Re: ADG 101
« on: February 22, 2018, 03:04:43 PM »
I might be available to play.

Bolt Action / Re: Escalation League Game Results
« on: February 21, 2018, 11:45:40 AM »
I think my argument would be for wins as the only criteria, with head-to-head as the tie breaker. Margin of victory only seems relevant in the force destruction missions (of which there are two too many :) )

In any case, I'll be the first to acknowledge your superior skill and tactics. :)

I feel margin of victory is entirely relevant. Just like in Flames, not all successes are made the same. In a tournament, once you pass 8 players you risk not settling on a single top-ranked player in a 3-round event. You will also have many ties in the lower tiers. Most of those players will not have played each other. I support having a proportion of forces lost/killed as part of the overall scoring. I do not think anyone would find it controversial to say that a victory where you win with your very last squad limping on its last few men is less decisive than one where you did not lose more than a handful of men scattered across several squads. I was just bringing up a situation(s) where it appeared to be falling short of its goal (especially if it modified a mission win down to a true draw. In a straight kill mission, the 0-1 margin = draw might make sense. But it will still risk struggling with disparate force sizes - much like Flames sometimes did).

I am less worried about beating my chest in superiority as I am in having a sensible system where the whole gamut of force compositions are given a comparable shake in scoring. Ideally, I will never need to think "Hmm, I should really drop this squad to bulk up the other ones" just because I think I will get punished in the soring rather than because I think it will make my platoon better. Likewise, I hope you never need to think "Hmm, I really should break this unit into 2 squads" because of scoring only.

Bolt Action / Re: Escalation League Game Results
« on: February 20, 2018, 03:53:20 PM »
I am not sure I followed that. It sounds like we are deciding level of win/loss twice.

Regardless, I do not think it wise to delegate margin of victory determination to the players at game time. That will lead to inconsistent experiences and opens up the door to disagreements - both honest and exploitative. I think it much better if there is a decision made by the powers that be (and/or with modifications as they see fit) and everyone deals with it.

Todos, some of us have anemic little insignificant forces with so few dice you cannot find them in the sack of retrieval (umm, phrasing?). Why should those of us with reasonable platoons be disparaged for their inability to contribute enough dice to require a full hand to count?

More seriously, the disparity between say Mike and my forces is a perfect example of why margin of victory value should not be determined on the fly by the players. Mike will have every incentive to push for one method, probably with a seemingly well founded conviction that he is completely reasonable and in the right. Meanwhile, I will have every incentive to push for the opposite method, also probably with a seemingly well founded conviction that I am completely reasonable and in the right. Even if we do not end up smashing each other's models with our hardcopy rulebooks, if I persuade him to my way of thinking and we are the only ones to play by those rules, I might gain a big advantage in event scoring, which is un-fair to everyone else in the event.

Art de la Guerre / Re: List building
« on: February 19, 2018, 02:09:14 PM »
There is a bad matchup for every list. You cannot cram an adequate hard-counter to every troop type into a single list. And if you find a way you will quickly find you do not have enough to deal with the numbers of that troop type you opponent has if they focus on that type.

Something rubs me the wrong way about this list. I think it might be the list itself. Light chariots are medium cavalry bow with the ability to shoot out the rear facing. I am not sure how I feel about having so many distributed so thinly. Then again, this is very different from any list I have ever fielded so maybe I know nothing of its potential.

Bolt Action / Re: Escalation League Game Results
« on: February 19, 2018, 02:04:10 PM »
Player: Matthew Fullmer
Opponent: Mike Cunningham
Date: 17 Feb 18
Mission: Demolition
Mission Result: Stalin smiles (Win), Destroyed Mike's objective while preserving my own
Units destroyed: 3 to 2:
   Mike started with 4 dice (2 crazy tricked out vet commando squads, a vet HQ, and a vet sniper. By the end of turn 6, when I had then contacted his objective, he was reduced to a ~75 point sniper squad and a bunch of cooling bodies in silly hats.
   I lost my LMG squad and HQ.

   Lesson to be learned, a small regular LMG squad in a building is insufficient to daunt a squad of crazies commanded by Mike. The HQ was actually a sacrificial diversion to try and persuade Mike into range of my flamethrower (plus several other support units. Mike's HQ squad almost saved the day for him and almost secured at least a draw on its own with a Cunningham-esque bold charge up the board to support the hammered and heavily pinned assault commandos.

Overall Result - Well, now this is a weird one that might be highlighting the weakness in the scoring system. As I understand it, despite losing 160 points worth of troops to Mike's ultimately ~425 and having 6 order dice left in the pool to Mike's 1, this is still a draw because the kill points are only +1 in my favor (3:2). It seems like having tiny super elite forces will sometimes make it hard to win outright if they are too small to have enough activations. But on the flip side, it will be hard to wipe the table against them and still have a 2+ unit killed disparity. So, commandoes for semi-perpetual draws?

MVP votes - Mike and I did not actually discuss this. Looking back at it, I think the flamethrower is the choice for me. It caused Mike the most vexation in unit activation and movement decisions and ultimately crisped his maneuver squad to cinders over multiple flame attacks. If Mike had won or drawn then I would probably have voted for his bold HQ squad as they would have been the difference.

Logistics - I should count as a +1 in both categories.

Art de la Guerre / Re: ADG 101
« on: February 16, 2018, 12:34:29 PM »
The stars appear to be right for noon. Any thing you want to see thrown against you?

Art de la Guerre / Re: ADG 101
« on: February 15, 2018, 09:14:39 PM »
Good chance of a yes. Will update tomorrow.

Bolt Action / Re: Escalation League Game Results
« on: February 11, 2018, 06:31:19 PM »
Opponent: Bob Rioux
Date: 11 Feb 18
Mission: Top Secret
Mission Result: Stalin smiles again (Win), objective successfully extracted from the table
Units destroyed: 6 to 3:

Overall Result - Major Win

MVP votes - We did not discuss choices, but I would have voted for my SMG squad. I suspect Bob would be on board with the choice as they got the drop on one of his GI squads, killing 8 in a hail of fire (and inducing a panic check which they failed) while simultaneously securing the objective. Two turns later they had removed it from the board without taking a single casualty.

Logistics - I had both bought and painted new units in the leadup to this game, so +1 for each of those, if we are going by week, rather than point bracket.

Bolt Action / Escalation League Game Results
« on: February 11, 2018, 06:22:26 PM »
Figured I would start a fresh thread to collect these in.

Sean, feel free to dispute if your records disagree:

Player: Matthew Fullmer
Opponent: Mean Saloney
Date: 04 Feb 18
Mission: Key Positions
Mission Result: Stalin smiles (Win), 2 objectives taken to 1 for Sean
Units destroyed: 3 to 1:
   Sean lost a veteran squad, his HQ squad, and the 80mm mortar (to a BS lucky exceptional damage on the 1st turn of the game).
   Matt lost the flamethrower squad to overwatch from the German heroes of the haus - a squad who heroically sat still in a cabin for nearly the entire game while boldly not getting ranged in on by my mortar the entire time.

Overall Result - Major Win

MVP votes - Speaking for myself, I would vote for my SMG squad that came off of outflank reserves to obliterate Sean's vets and contributed most of the credit to taking out the HQ. 2nd choice are the stoic heroes of the haus, for boldly staying calm under depressingly little fire and then gunning down a helpless team in the open.

Logistics - I had both bought and painted new units in the leadup to this game, but as this is the 1st round, I assume they should not count for these categories.

Bolt Action / Re: Bolt Action Winter Offensive; Escalation League
« on: February 06, 2018, 01:09:42 PM »
Thanks Chris.

A few more questions still.

MVP, we decide on a single unit between both of us? The packet made us think it might be each player picking one unit on their side and one on the enemies.

How is theme defined? Are we voting for our own or our opponents' army each game? Or a later vote out of all participants at a later time?

Best painted is a vote for our own, or our opponents' each week? Or a later vote out of all participants at a later time?

Bolt Action / Re: Bolt Action Winter Offensive; Escalation League
« on: February 03, 2018, 10:18:55 PM »
Sean, download the link below. I will leave it up for a few days so anyone else who wants it can grab it.


Also, can I assume you will be there to play tomorrow? I expect to only have time for one one game (that whole sport ball thing is kind of relevant to my wife and I - she is from Philly), but would be happy to get a rematch with your file assault rifle toting tottenkophers.

Bolt Action / Re: Rules Discussion
« on: February 03, 2018, 10:13:55 PM »

True enough. I'll just have my sniper take out the RPGs before they can fire at the guys in the building. :)

Don't be too proud of this technological terror you have constructed. The power to snipe an RPG or team weapon is insignificant next to the power of failing to hit on a 3+.

Bolt Action / Re: Snipers - an MMG's nightmare
« on: February 02, 2018, 02:14:17 PM »
I'll give it a try and see how it works. One thing I'm enjoying about Bolt Action is that some units that weren't useful in FoW (like snipers and light mortars) have value.

I noticed something interesting with the light mortar. You need to get close enough to take return fire to use it. Sean scared mine off with rifle fire. Even behind cover I lost one man and then took a unit morale check, which they failed. And poof, no more fire support. Definitely keeps me from thinking of it as some sort of a steal, points wise. But a really useful tool, I think.

Bolt Action / Re: Rules Discussion
« on: February 02, 2018, 02:10:55 PM »
    • Units in buildings not only get a cover bonus (-2) when opponents are trying to hit them, but a +1 protection bonus to damage them. So, my Commandos in a building are only destroyed on a six, not a 5+ as usual. I think my guys will be spending a lot of time in buildings!

    Keep in mind that pen values add bonuses to kill roles. So that +5/+6 RPG will still kill your commando on a 2+ (because, you know in a d6 system we need auto-fails 17% of the time).

    Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5