Revised vs 2nd ed
triforce last edited by
Wow, I just noticed this thread.Â Time to have some fun.
Well, as one of the “whiners”… I did get a 1 in 10,000 string of bad dice that drew a LOT of attention a while back…
Also, I proved in my ONLY Low Luck game that I have ever played (and the only one I will ever play), that you can still get massively dice fracked in LL.Â Happened on G1… about the worst possible time for it.
You still fail to realize, you NEVER should have done the battle in the first place.Â Had you taken “WOL”, EE still would have been open for attack.
Or perhaps more like likely you kill Avins 2 arm (10 IPC), but end up losing 3 inf, 1 arm (14 IPC), on the R2 counter.
I’m with you Switch.
I don’t get why people keep playing Classic when you can play Revised. It’s like whacking away at your typewriter when you could be using a pentium pro and a printer with frikkin laserbeams!
It is still a challenging game and it is Fun!.Â Why do people still play Risk, Chess, Checkers, any game that is older than 2 yrs?
Just like I’m sure people will still be playing Revised in 5, 10, 15…. yrs.
I think one of the things that keeps people playing the original is the indignation that nothing could possibly be better than their all-time favorite game- one in which they’ve invested hundreds of hours playing and becoming proficient with. A&AR levelled the playing field, so all the A&A experts had to come up with new strats and grapple with not being the best anymore. I’ve looked at a couple of other sites- especially related to Classic, and as the new game was slowly being revealed a few years ago 98% of the people who played Classic sounded like they’d just been punched in the stomach. The great A&A temple was crumbling, and a false idol was being thrust upon them.
I played alot of Classic, starting as a young pup, and Revised is much better once you accept the differences.
Just an opinion.
That can go both ways.Â By that logic, one could say that the people that play revised only do so b/c they aren’t any good at 2nd/3rd edition.
They needed a new game to get back at those who beat them all these years.
Now for some more of my thoughts, the reason you have LL proponents is not only for strat testing but also b/c of Club play in general.Â I’ve never played in a Club but I’ve picked up a lot in the 5 yrs I’ve been here from passers by.
In some instances newbies to clubs or players that don’t care would simply take “crap shoots” at Kar on G1 rolling the dice and try to pick up lots of rating points by beating a highly skilled player.
Thus this forces the highly skilled players to stop player lower skilled players, b/c why risk points on a chance that the game will be a G1 crap shoot.
However, in LL, there is a great penalty for this, you will lose.Â Thus you can try to eliminate the “gamblers”, “chuckers” and the genarally unskilled from trying these foolish things.Â I imagine it would only take 1 or 2 loses for this person to just quit or get serious about his play.
Odds may even out, but when talking about rating points they don’t.Â Say I’m playing somone and the difference is 50 pts so 50 pts are up for grabs and my opponent gets diced and I win and get 50 pts.Â Now I’m playing a newbie and 200 pts is on the line but now I get diced and I lose 200 pts.
There are also instances where one person wins and gets 25 points and they do an immediate rematch and the other person wins but only gets 20 pts due to a change in rating points from the first game.
This does not even out.Â Not all wins/losses are worth the same.
And this leads to players manupilating their ranking by only playing certain players.
LL removes this somewhat, b/c the chances of a newbie beating a highly skilled player is much smaller, and in theory over time the highly skilled players will be at the top while the “chuckers” may get a win here and there but they’ll still have too many losses and drop down the rankings.
With all this said, it is a bit different here, we don’t keep rankings and we generally play for fun or the challenge or whatever, but you are also likely to easily be able to get a rematch if a “dicey” occurs or some other egregious error, that can’t be said in some other Clubs where if you lose you may never be able to play that person again or maybe they just constantly duck you.
As for me I play:
2nd Ed, 3rd Ed, RR, No-RR, ADS, LL, tech, no-tech, aa-risk, or whatever other scenerio you can come up with.
And NOW I just downloaded the AAR Rulebook, so in time look out!Â Â 8-)
I can understand LL in a situation like this. I just dont play for rank. I play for fun, so if the dice screw me, oh well. I’ll get you next time!
I’ll gladly play ADS, and have no prob with dice, but I’ll also play people who perfer LL.
I kinda play by this little rule: you’ll lose about 20% of your games due to dice, what you want to do is maximize the 80% that aren’t.
But it can get annoying when you take time to play a PBEM and you get “diced” in rd 1, yes it is part of the game but still in PBEM when so much time is involved.
I often offer my opponents a compromise or even a reroll just b/c I don’t want to win via a early bad roll.
If they don’t take it fine, I just like making the offer.
It is very similar to PE bids (in Classic), at least for me, I mean why play if someone is going to put 7-8 inf in Europe. It is obvious what they are doing and regardless of what happens the game is over by rd 3, either Mos will be about to fall or it won’t. That is not fun. Likewise it is not fun if Ger gets diced in uk sz or J gets diced at pearl and Chi. And I mean severly diced not simply rolling up 1 or 2 or even 3 hits, I mean the real screw jobs. Like the infamous whiff at Pearl and US hits on all 3.
I stopped playing ADS a long time ago. The best players from flames-of-europe only play low luck.
newpaintbrush last edited by
Responses to other posters’ posts -
Octopus, it’s in my siggy. Ha.
Ezto, all the best players from flames-of-europe can play low luck. When they’re ready to play with the big kids, they can come on down and play a REAL man. Woman. Small fuzzy creature from Alpha Centauri. :-P. I can understand the appeal of lowering the luck factor, but to me, luck is a vital part of the game. You have to have, um, cojones, for lack of a better word. Even when the odds are in your favor, there’s always an element of risk.
Response to original post -
I prefer Revised to Classic, but I can see that classic has its points. First, old dogs don’t like change. Second, some people just prefer classic’s play style. (Three dice for heavy bombers, that was the stuff . . .)
If you're having problems, please send an email to firstname.lastname@example.org