|
Post by Cilionelle on May 28, 2009 1:54:48 GMT -5
Is there some reason we suspect that the vast majority of players will be using Americans? It's the same reason Cygnar and Space Marines are so popular! Maybe that was a bad example, and I was just using them as an example. The numbers can be switched and you still have the same problem, especially if Soviets and Americans (and Brits) are counted as the Allies, vs. the Axis forces. Edit: Heh! I quoted myself in my response!
|
|
fattdex
Lieutenant
Halt! Hammerzeit!
Posts: 464
|
Post by fattdex on May 28, 2009 6:07:20 GMT -5
its a small selection, but of the people getting into AE at Monday Knights, we have 2x Soviet, 2x German, 2x USA (and i also have brits as a second force)
|
|
|
Post by dboeren on May 28, 2009 9:18:57 GMT -5
It's the same reason Cygnar and Space Marines are so popular! Maybe that was a bad example, and I was just using them as an example. The numbers can be switched and you still have the same problem, especially if Soviets and Americans (and Brits) are counted as the Allies, vs. the Axis forces. I kind of agree that those may not be particularly good examples though. Space Marines are (in my impression, and I've never been a 40K player) so popular because of a combination of being overpowered and because there are so many different subchapters that they're more like the equivalent of 2 factions. Cygnar, I just don't believe. Every time I've seen a poll on the PP site the factions are pretty even - nobody has a significant numbers advantage. Now on Axis vs. Allies you're totally right, that would be an awful way to split things up with multiple factions against only one. What might need to be done is to see how the faction balance actually turns out for the event and then determine a fair split. So then the question I pose back (to everyone here) is: What is the approximate faction balance here? Have polls been done, or can someone from Darkson share any sales stats on the number of starters that have been sold for each faction?
|
|
|
Post by Scorpio on May 28, 2009 15:43:35 GMT -5
It would be horrible to see something like ChumanSpamâ„¢ become the norm for this game. It is, however, the norm on the Russian dinner table.
|
|
|
Post by Scorpio on May 28, 2009 15:48:19 GMT -5
So then the question I pose back (to everyone here) is: What is the approximate faction balance here? Have polls been done, or can someone from Darkson share any sales stats on the number of starters that have been sold for each faction? We do have this informal poll as a data point. But that only asks primary army, not total.
|
|
|
Post by xGIxJOKERx on Jun 10, 2009 18:26:33 GMT -5
You could always set it up in such a way that there are only so many spots available for Axis and so many for Allies, first come first serve. It is a little brutal that way, especially if you really had your heart set on one side or the other and it filled up too fast but detachments are small enough compared to other games that I think most people have two anyhow. Cost wise you can get entire detachments for the just over the price of one of the bigger Warjacks, a squad or vehicle for 40k, or a platoon in FOW.
|
|
mechaace
Sergeant
Really an atomically powered robot
Posts: 249
|
Post by mechaace on Jun 11, 2009 3:06:07 GMT -5
I must admit like the others I'm a bit torn about this. For one getting together with a bunch of players would be nice, and initially I used to play WM tourneys for that reason, get together and play WM all day.
After a couple of tournaments though I decided that I really didn't enjoy turning up just to be faced with the latest wonderlist of the time, so I've kinda given up on going to tourneys now.
A tournament might be interesting, especially if as said it was done as factions rather than just the player. Please though whatever you do, if you start tournaments, don't start releasing LE models as prizes. Different poses and stuff are okay for it, but I mean the LE models that have stats etc, and can only be obtained through tourneys, or those willing to pay obscene prices on ebay.
|
|
|
Post by bsantucci on Jun 11, 2009 13:58:44 GMT -5
I have gotten tired of tourneys. They burn me out as people just get too serious and uptight. We have been enjoying the story based campaigns in the rule book and " over the wire". Could we get some more of these story based campaigns?
|
|
|
Post by abbysdad on Jun 12, 2009 10:30:01 GMT -5
I have gotten tired of tourneys. They burn me out as people just get too serious and uptight. We have been enjoying the story based campaigns in the rule book and " over the wire". Could we get some more of these story based campaigns? I just like to play with toy soldiers. Regardless of the conditions or the rules of engagement. Tournaments are fun because you get to meet new people and see new tactics that you haven't thought of before. Swag is nice, but it's not why I play. I'm currently busy painting up some mini's for a hope of attending gencon. But here's my 0.02$ on the competitive subject... I agree that more story based campaigns would be cool. A book or OtW of weird style campaigns would be cool too! I'm still holding out for dinosaurs. But I disagree that AE lends itself to power gaming. You could take a chuman spam list, or take 4 rohlingsoldats, or all snipers, or a dog pound, but then the secondary objectives for the scenario (or tertiary objectives!) come back to kick you in the butt. And there is no greater equalizer than a sachel charge or artillery support. Also, the detachments that let you easily "spam" prevent you from taking vehicles. So if you bring a solid balanced list versus an unbalanced list you should still do OK. Most of the guys I play against use balanced lists. For fun, next time we play, I will try to bring a stacked list and see how it fares. Best Regards, Chris
|
|