Taking the Temperature on the 3.0 Rules, including recent errata/clarifications

[Niko White]

I guess I misinterpreted what we were supposed to be agreeing to disagree about.  I'm certainly willing to agree that we have different data.

That said, I think something like the strategic dominance of a particular army type is a really big deal.  And, as you rightly raised, if people are going to be working together on the rules, we have to make sure everyone's on the same page about where we want to be, but also about where we are.  So I'm fine with saying "let's keep an eye on this one", in fact, I think that's the right place to be, both because of your concerns and just in general.  But in working together on rules changes, again a variant of a point you've made, we need to either make changes based on cheap units being too good, or not do that.  Pulling in two directions on this one isn't going to be productive.

Maybe that's one for the rules team forum though.  I certainly wasn't trying to get you to say I'm right or anything, and I apologize if I came off that way, just that in practical terms it's important to approach things from the same place.

[Zelc]

Kevin, you really seem like you're flaming when you post like that :-/.  I know you're blunt, but can you soften it up a bit when you post online?

On another note, I guess the only resolution to this is if/when I get to Boston next Feb, for me to play Kevin a bunch and see if wide-line armies dominate .

[Hannibal]

Here's a thought, Corey:  How about from now on you start posting game photo-reports?

There are three reasons why I have not.  First, in the last two years at least 50% of my games have been playtest games.  Can't really post those up.  Second, taking quality pictures slows down the game by half.  I had a folder-full of pics from last year's campaigns that the glare made it so you couldn't see anything.  Making sure to get good shots was slowing down the games, so I stopped.  Third, clearly you don't have kids, or you'd realize the value of 45 spare minutes in the evening.  I rattle of these posts in the pockets of time I have during the day, and in the evenings I prefer to enjoy my other hobbies (including actually playing this game). If it offends you that I'm not giving up more of my free time to this forum...wel, I'd say I'm sorry, but that'd be a lie.

If you continue to post walls of text on the forum while refusing to put up even a bare minimum of evidence, Occam's Razor suggests that this is because you suspect that posting your own games online will weaken your arguments rather than strengthen them.

When you called for the Pila rule change, where was your online report demonstrating the need?

What about the Dark Elves rules changes?



I accepted to Niko that I can't provide the evidence he needs.  That's fair.  When he comes off rude about it, I give him the benefit of the doubt that it was unintentional.  Can you honestly say that your intent in the last post wasn't to be rude?

[Kevin]

My intent was to pull this thread out of pointless, repetitive head-butting.  Last I checked, this thread was for (almost) everyone to say their bit.

As to pila, I won a tournament with Romans, then Bohan won with Carthage.  And I've posted online at least 10 games where either Jaime or I used PW units.  Dark Elves...fewer games, but reports are up there (including ones on the playtest page).  As are very direct mathematical analyses of Dark Elves.  

Regarding photos, they come out best if you use the flash and angle the camera obliquely to the table so lights don't reflect off the cards.  Your photos should come out at least half decently.  Takes 10-15 seconds per photo.

Once you have photos, post them to flickr or another free service at night (Takes no more than 3 minutes to set up, then go play with the little ones while they photos upload.), then write the game report at your convenience over the following days.

[Hannibal]

My intent was to pull this thread out of pointless, repetitive head-butting.

By personally engaging in a round with me?

As to pila, I won a tournament with Romans, then Bohan won with Carthage.  And I've posted online at least 10 games where either Jaime or I used PW units.  Dark Elves...fewer games, but reports are up there (including ones on the playtest page).  As are very direct mathematical analyses of Dark Elves.

So if my point that USRF are dominant is just a step in the learning curve (as Chad & Niko summed it up), might then the same apply to Pila weapons?  I mean, I'd wager to say that people have gotten better since you won with Rome.  Most likely people also have gotten better since your tournament.  I mean you yourself have disavowed tactics that you swore by two years ago.

As for the Dark Elves, "mathematical analyses" are not published reports.

This is not to say that I think your analysis is automatically wrong.  Just that you yourself do not live up to your own standard.

[BubblePig]

I would like to get this thread back on track a little bit. I think that Niko makes a compelling point here:

this kind of situation, where one group thinks something is broken and another doesn't, generally points to one of the two groups being a metagame step or two ahead.  In theory, of course, it could be you guys.  But in cases like that, it's usually because the other group hasn't thought of the broken strategy.  That's not the case here.  Because of that, I'm finding it hard to believe that you guys are ahead of us on the curve.

But that in no way addresses my point:

I'm really, really unconvinced that either side is "right" in the question of two's company vs. pinching.

From a play balance perspective, I am right there with you, Chad.
But I am beginning to think that this is a card-based perspective vs miniatures-based perspective thing and if we are to convert the vast hordes of lead pushers to the side of all that is right and good, all other things being equal, perhaps we should go back to v2.X on this one.
*still ducking and running*

I have seen examples and heard of many more, where the initial reaction (admittedly with no playtest data etc. to back it up) of players who come to this game from the realm of lead minis say the v3.0 rule gives too much advantage to the attacker. Hence, if all other things are equal, for the purposes of getting more people playing the game I think we should, on this basis alone, very seriously consider whether to go back to v2.X on this. Thus far, I have seen only discussions about play balance, and of those none addressing whether or not v2.X is balanced.

[Niko White]

My understanding was this was a more general thread and that we would follow up with dealing with some specifics.  I'm not that strongly opposed to going back if we decide that it's more likely to bring in players; as far as I'm concerned the 3.0 way's a bit better but not significantly enough to fight over.  The overall point's way more important, to me.

[elgin_j]

It's worth bearing in mind that a refused flank/oblique line is a dominant military tactic throughout history and continues to this day in the military doctrine of the manoeuvrist approach prevalent in western Europe and N.America.  Consequently, it is inevitable that this become a dominant tactic in Battleground - it is common sense and good generalship.  That said, I do believe there are areas that could be tidied up and there I agree with Hannibal.  His assertion that unit spam allows for poor man's foresight is correct and I have been won round to his thinking that this unbalances the game in favour of horde armies.  I appreciate the reason the current rules dictate alternate deployment and orders but let's be honest - that's not how it's done in real life - it does have a significant effect which is acknowledged by the existence of Foresight as a concept.

[Hannibal]

It's worth bearing in mind that a refused flank/oblique line is a dominant military tactic throughout history and continues to this day in the military doctrine of the manoeuvrist approach prevalent in western Europe and N.America.  Consequently, it is inevitable that this become a dominant tactic in Battleground - it is common sense and good generalship. 

True, but also the same region conquered large portions of the world with a stand and shoot build.  And nobody wants to have two lines lobbing arrows back and forth.   

I just point this out to demonstrate that despite having an interest in military history, I tend not to like historical games.  Because in history warfare is pretty boring as one style pretty soon dominates until
there is some innovation.  Fantasy games have the possibility for anachronistic armies to fight side by side and have an equal chance.  Not trying to be argumentative, just saying that fantasy games give you a lot of freedom, which should be grasped with both hands.

[Kevin]

Thus far, I have seen only discussions about play balance, and of those none addressing whether or not v2.X is balanced.

I played 2.x for a year or so.  When we shifted to 3.0, it led to considerably more variety in my armies.  I was convinced, prior to that, that the best build was 8 infantry (1-2 of them heavy hitters), as it was nearly impossible for an enemy unit to get around the flanks on time.  Granted, I was a newer player at the time, but any cavalry short of knights struck me as worthless (with a few terrain-related exceptions).  Now, in an area where Corey and I agree, an excellent build involves light cavalry, infantry, light units, and heavy hitters.  The preferable number, and type, of units has become much more situational.  The 3.0 rules enhanced the real richness and variety of the game.

-----------

As to Corey's post...

I don't know about the game-winning Battleground tactics, but it seems like evade he subject is your game-winning move in this thread.

Above I pointed out that you can go game reports for perhaps 2 minutes of playtime, 3 minutes of home time, and under 45 of other time.  The question still stands:  why do you continue to refuse to put up game reports?

As to pila, Jaime (my regular opponent) took 2nd at Championship with Rome, losing only to Carthage--the other army with pila.  Carthage also did very well at Council, new rules and all.

Regarding Dark Elves, in addition to published reports of a number of Dark Elf fights (with 2 more on the way), we have 50+ online game reports, as well as--more generally--my games vs. Jaime (plus, to a much more limited extent, Bohan & Niko) by which people can judge whether I might have a clue.  

[Hannibal]

I don't know about the game-winning Battleground tactics, but it seems like evade he subject is your game-winning move in this thread.

Kevin, for what its worth, I'm not trying "win" here.  This isn't an oxford style debate where we're trying to score points.  Whenever I debate on these forums, I'm honestly trying to convince folks of what I see is the best/correct course of action.  When its proven to me that I don't have the best/correct course of action, I try to acknowledge that and accept it.  ("correct" is during rules debates where there are factual answers, whereas "best" implies matter of opinion) 

As you've stated, my style is that I hunt for "Magic Persuasion Pony."  To me it seems that is the correct way to do things:  to convince people based on the merits of your argument.  Sometimes I get heated about it, and for any and all the times that came at you, I apologize.  Correction: I apologize to everyone with whom I got heated.

At the same time, sometimes it feels like your method of debate is to state your opinion and then browbeat/harangue those who have a different opinion.  That a disagreement/debate is something to "win" at.  What is frustrating to me is that you almost always have good points in your arguments, and that if you just presented them and defended any rebuttals politely and patiently you'd encounter less resistance.  Perhaps that is just our interaction, I don't know.

My whole point the last day or so that I felt though I did not succeed in convincing people, although that may not be entirely the case.  Which, to be honest, has me scratching my head.

Above I pointed out that you can go game reports for perhaps 2 minutes of playtime, 3 minutes of home time, and under 45 of other time.

My experience has been different.  Not saying that I certainly won't give it a try going forward.

The question still stands:  why do you continue to refuse to put up game reports?

Kevin, seriously.  You posted your question at like 5:30pm (PT) last night.  Between then and now (9:00am PT), did you expect me to run out, leave my kids unattended, dragoon a buddy and play?

Perhaps I will attempt to take more pictures.  But then again, perhaps I won't.  I've had a hard time getting decent pictures (I suspect it has to do with the sleeves on my cards) but beyond that, if I feel like doing something else with those 45 minutes, "What Would Kevin Think?" ain't gonna be my mantra.   

As an example, last night after dinner, cleanup, a bath for the kids, homework with my daughter, and prepping lunch for school, I had almost exactly 45 minutes of downtime.  I could have spent that time

a) getting more writing done
b) finishing painted some 15mm minis
c) doing a session report for you (hypothetically, if I had pics)
d) sitting with my wife on the couch and watching Community and the Office that were DVR'd.

I chose d, because "sorry honey, this guy on the YMG forums whom I've never met face to face will think less of me if I don't post something up" is a sure way to get The Look.  If you're married, you know what I'm talking about.  If you're not, I can't explain it. 

So I watched Community (great episode) and the Office (so-so).  And if that makes you take me less seriously as a game designer...again, I'd say I'm sorry, but that'd be a lie.

As to pila, Jaime (my regular opponent) took 2nd at Championship with Rome, losing only to Carthage--the other army with pila.  Carthage also did very well at Council, new rules and all.

Correlation does not equal causation.  That pila armies did well does not automatically mean pilas are overpowered.  Perhaps it has to do with their army abilities, the fact that they have skirmishers, the fact that with Unit Spam they can get advantages in deployment that show up elsewhere, or even the point on the learning curve that the players were during your tournament or at Council.  Perhaps the fact that Carthage went from 2nd to "very well" could mean that people are learning to deal with Carthage and/or other rules changes (e.g. skirmishers) are bringing them down on the power ladder.

I'm not saying you're wrong on pilas per se.  I'm saying that you yourself demanded photographic evidence instead of just testimony to support my claims, yet for your own claims you offered only testimony and demanded that be enough evidence.  And you continue to do so right here.

I personally am willing to accept just testimony as evidence, if only as a warning so I can attempt to replicate it myself.  However, you seem to indicate otherwise, and if that's the case what applies to others should also apply to the speaker.

Regarding Dark Elves, in addition to published reports of a number of Dark Elf fights (with 2 more on the way), we have 50+ online game reports

Again, were those 50+ game reports up before or after you demanded Dark Elves be hit with the nerf bat?



For the record folks, I will do my best to limit myself to the 3-a-day rule on this thread to keep thread fatigue low.  This counts as 1 for me.   

[elgin_j]

Kevin, seriously.  You posted your question at like 5:30pm (PT) last night.  Between then and now (9:00am PT), did you expect me to run out, leave my kids unattended, dragoon a buddy and play?

I expect it - get to it!

[Hannibal]

Well I did get to play a couple of games last night, but I left the camera. 

But if I did it'd have shown an escalating stupidity on my part.  Game one I had the unit advantage and enough foresight that he deployed his entire army, but managed to flub deployment that I exposed myself to letting a bad roll swing the game back to a draw. Lesson: sticky your original plan.  Don't get cute.

Game two was just a bonehead move.  Meant to shift a unit to shift a unit to take a two's company and just spaced it.  So Bears on the front Wolves on the flank...  If I'd failed the pinch check Ordered Retreat would've saved me, but I passed really just getting what I deserved.

[Chad_YMG]

A couple of quick thoughts and responses:

Kevin, I called Corey on what seemed inappropriate, so let me just say that the first and last parts of your opening post seem inappropriate as well.  "Here's a thought" is inherently combative and condescending, IMO, and if Occam's Razor really leads one to conclude that another poster is deliberately hiding data because they think it will work against them I think it's much better to focus on the data than to impugn the person.

FWIW, I strongly disagree that Corey not posting reports suggests that he thinks his data doesn't actually support his argument.  I've never posted a photo report and, while I'm sure it's easy to do so I find the prospect rather daunting.

That said, I do think that "data" in a broad sense is really important.  I've lost track of the number of games I've played where good players have thought that something was too good and it turned out not to be.  Sometimes there's an intuitive argument (I'm looking at you, Zvi Moshovitz), sometimes there's the results of personal playtesting, sometimes it's a conclusion drawn by a group.  Most of those cases turn out to be wrong...and along the way things we don't think are too good turn out to be.

From a game development standpoint I think it's generally best to react slowly and carefully to imbalances, and to require that they be proven pretty conclusively.

Also, right or wrong, I do count competitive results from serious events much more heavily than the results of a private playtest group unless at least one of the following apply:

1. The players in the tournament didn't have specific knowledge that was key to the playtest group's opinion
2. The playtest group is known to be stronger than the top players in the tournament.

Back in the day this sometimes applied.  When Andrew tore up the world with stand-and-shoot, Rob, Darwin and I went over his armies and his arguments as to why that build was dominant and tested them ourselves.  Each of us was as good or better than Andrew at Battleground generally, and we might well have found builds that he hadn't considered and if so I think it would have been very reasonable to give our findings heavier weight.

In this case, I don't think either point applies.  As Niko said, the army build Corey is advocating isn't unknown or untested.  It was used by some at Council and at Kevin's championship and, as I understand it, it didn't dominate.  That's pretty significant to me.  Maybe I need to fly Niko out to Kublacon next year and we can see some head-to-head theory testing. 

One exception I will (sometimes) make is when the case that something is broken revolves around it working in a way that we absolutely didn't/don't want and didn't price into the unit.  The Skirmisher flypaper trick is one.  Pila is sort of another.  I'm actually fine with pila being really good vs. stand-and-shoot builds, but we really underestimated how many "extra" attacks a pila unit typically gets in games with terrain.  Since terrain is a regular and important feature of Battleground (particularly at the top levels, e.g. tournaments), that was compelling.

By the same token, I think "poor man's foresight" could be another.  It used to be that the range of army sizes was modest; only the Undead could really field a numerically-massive army.  Most games you had maybe 7 vs. 8, and it felt right to have the player with 8 drop the first unit.  It feels very different when an army of 14 faces an army of 7 and gets a large strategic advantage during setup as a result.

[Hannibal]

Maybe I need to fly Niko out to Kublacon next year and we can see some head-to-head theory testing. 

I had a great time playing Niko last time he was out, so if you want to do that, cool!  But I also feel you're not gonna get a great sample if you do.  Most the local guys don't go to the con ("why pay money to play the same people I can play at the store?").  Historical guys:  they'll drive 2 hours to play historical games on a Saturday, so a con is nothing special to them.

The guys who play at the con play infrequently.

One exception I will (sometimes) make is when the case that something is broken revolves around it working in a way that we absolutely didn't/don't want and didn't price into the unit.  The Skirmisher flypaper trick is one.  Pila is sort of another.  I'm actually fine with pila being really good vs. stand-and-shoot builds, but we really underestimated how many "extra" attacks a pila unit typically gets in games with terrain.  Since terrain is a regular and important feature of Battleground (particularly at the top levels, e.g. tournaments), that was compelling.

Perhaps we could reexamine this in another thread then?  Because to me if the problem is "pila + terrain = bad" then any rule tweak should kick in only when you have pila + terrain and not pila in the open.