Some of the unit proposals for the deck had me thinking. Does (and at what threshold) aggressively using units on high end of the powercurve unsportsmanlike?
Not to say that a player should handicap themselves by poor unit selection. More a question of exploiting "broken" or "undercost units" in bulk.
In general I'd say yes, but its just my opinion.
It really depends on the playing environment i.e you bringing it to a kitchen table match or a tournament? Cause those are two different beasts and expectations should be set accordingly.
I have done it to keep people on my playgroup on their toes. Mostly though, I just do it for fun..I have done larger point game where I have had the entire Baltimore class on the board. My favorite one to do for fun is to deploy Battlecruiser squadron 1 which is Hood, Renown, Repulse, and then Brigs Tiger, Glorious, Furious, and Courageous.... the end result has always been fun...
Another thing I do that probably bites me in the behind is try to only use one of each named ship. Again its a mental thing for me not a house rule we use.
Another thing I do that probably bites me in the behind is try to only use one of each named ship. Again its a mental thing for me not a house rule we use.
This is an un-spoken rule at all our home games as well.
I think that this really depends on the venue and expands into more games than just War at Sea. For example, I've seen this same question in regards to Heroclix, Star Wars X-Wing, and Warhammer 40k as well.
The best answer I've seen if you are heading to a new venue... bring two teams/fleets/builds/etc. One is 'friendly' and the other is 'competitive', once you get to the venue you can generally get a feel for the environment and even talk to the judge and players to help you decide which team would be more compatible.
Another thing I do that probably bites me in the behind is try to only use one of each named ship. Again its a mental thing for me not a house rule we use.
This is an un-spoken rule at all our home games as well.
You all do this even for smaller ships on large-scale games? For instance, you only use one Fletcher? Maybe that's not the best example, since there are several Fletcher Class DDs in the game. It makes sense to only have one Tirpitz, or one Alaska. Are there not some scenarios, though, where you need a large flotilla of DDs that makes avoiding duplication impossible?
Yeah this. I tend to avoid duplicating named capital ships, but it’s hard to do with DDs or Subs that represent a large class - especially if there are few or no published sisters.
This is an un-spoken rule at all our home games as well.
You all do this even for smaller ships on large-scale games? For instance, you only use one Fletcher? Maybe that's not the best example, since there are several Fletcher Class DDs in the game. It makes sense to only have one Tirpitz, or one Alaska. Are there not some scenarios, though, where you need a large flotilla of DDs that makes avoiding duplication impossible?
Indeed. With all the forum decks (and some of SWO's as well) there are plenty of choices to fill out large DD flotillas.
You all do this even for smaller ships on large-scale games? For instance, you only use one Fletcher? Maybe that's not the best example, since there are several Fletcher Class DDs in the game. It makes sense to only have one Tirpitz, or one Alaska. Are there not some scenarios, though, where you need a large flotilla of DDs that makes avoiding duplication impossible?
Indeed. With all the forum decks (and some of SWO's as well) there are plenty of choices to fill out large DD flotillas.
One reason I don't do this is because I have a terrible time remembering all the abilities on all the different cards. My "memory bandwidth" is pretty limited.
The IJN Carrier Liberation Force - "Because We Care" Join the IJNCVLF. Service Guarantees Citizenship!
Indeed. With all the forum decks (and some of SWO's as well) there are plenty of choices to fill out large DD flotillas.
One reason I don't do this is because I have a terrible time remembering all the abilities on all the different cards. My "memory bandwidth" is pretty limited.
Not gonna lie, that does happen. We try and remind each other if possible, but we often just chalk it up to the "fog of war" etc.
One thing that does help is having enough space to lay all your cards out in front of you while you're playing if possible.
One reason I don't do this is because I have a terrible time remembering all the abilities on all the different cards. My "memory bandwidth" is pretty limited.
Not gonna lie, that does happen. We try and remind each other if possible, but we often just chalk it up to the "fog of war" etc.
One thing that does help is having enough space to lay all your cards out in front of you while you're playing if possible.
We do the same thing in our club most of the time. The "help line" tends to get quiet when a game is very close.
The IJN Carrier Liberation Force - "Because We Care" Join the IJNCVLF. Service Guarantees Citizenship!
Sorry to mention this on an old thread. But we were talking about costing. Some of the "apples to oranges" costing questions are open to debate, but now and then I come across two units with nearly identical characteristics, where one is still costed wrong relative to the other. I just noticed this one the other day: N1K1 George vs. USMC Corsair. Identical numbers, almost identical special abilities (slight advantage to the USMC Corsair), but for some reason George costs one MORE than USMC Corsair - probably should be equal or if anything one point less. Only argument to the contrary I can see is that in relative terms to the 1943-44 Japanese economy, it might have been more costly to produce for them than Corsairs were to the U.S. - but that makes little difference in fleet building for a points based game.