Schuetzen and DAK Kradschuetzen feedback
- This topic has 30 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 5 years, 5 months ago by
.
-
@invisible officer, like you said. Bolt Action is a game. “Historical Accuracy” kind of gets thrown out the window every single time we put a Howitzer or Mortar team on the front lines. Sure you can argue, maybe this is an enemy force penetrating into the back lines to raid an artillery barrage. But… they also have mortars and howitzers usually… also on the front lines… so never mind.
Why do the rules let us take mortars and howitzers in a normal game? Because eschewing that particular bit of realism opens up a much larger cast of weapons and units to play with in our game of toy soldiers, and adds depth to the game play experience.
I bring this up because Bolt Action is a game, and like any game what is effective under the dice based rules of Bolt Action does not necessarily line up 1 to 1 with the laws of physics based rules armies in WW2 operated under.
As a game, Bolt Action needs to be balanced. Which is what points are for. If the problem is with LMGs, then their cost should be adjusted globally, not by introducing a unit that gets them at a steep discount that is only available to one army in a few theater selectors.
And anyway, we are not having a discussion about whether “lmgs are worth it”. We are having a specific discussion about the only unit in the game that gets one free. I have never heard my German opponents complain about the cost of their Veteran infantry squads with 2 lmgs before. I have never complained about my Soviet regulars with 2 lmgs either. But that is neither here nor there.
If you don’t use points, more power to you, but the game needs to be balanced around points to function as a fair game. And I don’t want to end up in a W40K esque world where every single infantry choice has their own unique special rules. We already have army wide special rules and Warlord has a tough enough job balancing those.
Look. If you are primarily a narrative gamer, especially if you are a narrative gamer who puts historical unit compositions against each other to recreate historical battles without points. You don’t have a horse in this race. The discussion of whether Schuetzen are too good balance wise compared to other units is a balance question that really only comes to play when doing pick up games at a local club (where you will seldom have a historical match up), or attending tournaments of various sizes and flavors (where typically players are matched based on Swiss pairings as opposed to recreating battles).
I am honestly surprised at the amount of historical gas lighting that is going on in this thread about game balance and the direction of the game from a rules perspective. From a historical perspective it matters absolutely nothing how many imaginary points are paid for an lmg. It matters a lot when you are getting ready to attend a local tournament.
If you are in favor of Schuetzen getting a free lmg, than address it from a gameplay perspective. Why is this healthy for the game? How does this not obsolete (from a gameplay perspective) other German regular infantry sections?
Posters like myself and Felix have laid out our reasoning behind why we feel that Schuetzen are a poor addition from a balance perspective. What are the balance arguments in favor for why Schuetzen are not a problem from a balance perspective?
EDIT: As to the argument that Schuetzen are balanced compared to other WD selectors, which WD allied selectors are over performing? If there are issues with those allied selectors they should be brought up and addressed separately. At the end of the day, most tournaments allow people to bring lists from any selector they choose. So all selectors need to be somewhat balanced against each other, regardless of book.
āNarrativeā gamers are no second class BA Gamers. I know many Gamers that do not care for point ballance. That never attend a competition.
I agree with you 100%. Narrative games are an excellent way to play Bolt Action, and i actually have a lot of envy for people in communities with the collections to set up actual historical scenarios and recreate moments from history to game with.
Classes of gamers has nothing to do with what I was talking about at all though. A narrative game has a different set of parameters, which are generally different from the parameters of a regular pick up game or a large or small tournament. My point was that if you are creating a narrative game, points don’t matter. So a discussion about how many points something should cost shouldn’t have an impact for narrative gamers.
The German Fire Power advantage is represented by the Buzzsaw rule, and its represented by the superior weapon load outs (including the ability to take two lmgs in any capacity) available to Germans. Having a single unit in a single selector get free LMGs does a very poor job representing this.
As to your point about Budapest paying full price for lmgs, I ask you this. If you were attending a GT, why would you take regular infantry with 2 LMGs from the Budapest selector over the WD Selector? Remember, generally speaking most tournaments allow players to build a list from any selector in any of the campaign books. So it doesn’t matter if its just in one selector. I suppose we will have to see if it infects tournament lists, or if tournaments start restricting people to generic reinforced platoons as a result of abuse. But that isn’t something I want to see as one of the fun things about attending tournaments is seeing people’s unique and themed armies.
Finally, to your last point, “Scenarios” are different from “Selectors”. That goes without saying. A Scenario might call for a point disparity and different objectives for both sides. But the underlying selector is what creates the rules for army books. Competitive games have scenarios too, albiet those are scenarios designed for armies of equal points.
I apologize if you felt that I was insinuating that narrative gamers are second class in anyway. That is obviously not true. What I am saying is that in a thread about whether a certain choice is over centralizing and will have a negative effect on the GT meta… isn’t really a concern that narrative players generally have. Points are inherently not narrative anyway. They are arbitrary numbers picked designed to balance armies so players can more easily eyeball what will be “fair” from a game perspective. Points thus need to be set based on making sure the games are fair, and points imbalances should be fixed because they make the game less even between players when they are abused.
I may not play as many narrative games as I would like, but I don’t understand why people use narrative arguments to justify points imbalances that make it difficult to balance games for people who play primarily pick up games.
EDIT:
On the point of discussion between players. You cannot assume you will always have a chance to discuss things with your opponent. You show up at a local tournament and your opponent is bringing 5 squads of Shutzen to get access to 5 free lmgs? You can *try* talking to him about it, he will show you the rule, say tough beans, and you play your game. No negotiation, either you are right or your opponent is right and its up to the TO / rulebook to determine. This is why non narrative gamers care about points costs and things. You can’t just discuss whether something is sporting or not with your opponent before a game in certain settings. You prepare for the worst, but that doesn’t mean you don’t care if something is unhealthy for the game that you love.Its also hard to have those conversations with somebody you have just met. You may be blessed with an amazing community of people with a wealth of armies and a passion for creating fun scenarios. But many people are not blessed with a vibrant local community, and some have to travel quite far to get a game in with somebody they have just met. If that person doesn’t want to take a different choice, or (quite justifiably I might add) argues that their totally rules legal army is fine. You may be in a take it or leave it situation. There is an old saying that ‘beggars cannot be choosers’ and for people with very limited options on when and where they can play, they are quite frequently at the mercy of others. Playing by the rules is the only consistent they can guarantee. Players without a stable community aren’t second class either. “It doesn’t matter if its not balanced, just discuss it with your opponent” is a non answer that only applies to a certain type of game and inadvertently leaves people without the freedom to find ideal opponents who fit their own mantras in a really bad place. If its not balanced, then the points should be fixed is really the solution that is best for everyone.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.