Thanks, Kyuss! Wanted to exploit it for good
| Tactical Command http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/ |
|
| Imperial Fists V1.3 Approved! http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=73&t=30578 |
Page 5 of 6 |
| Author: | Graf_Spee [ Thu Aug 24, 2017 9:01 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Imperial Fists V1.3 Approved! |
Thanks, Kyuss! Wanted to exploit it for good
|
|
| Author: | jimmyzimms [ Thu Aug 24, 2017 1:02 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Imperial Fists V1.3 Approved! |
I'd strongly suggest that we (in EA in general) give an area for defensive terrain like razorwire and minefields and whatnot and the player can model it in whatever configuration they desire. |
|
| Author: | Graf_Spee [ Sat Aug 26, 2017 6:26 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Imperial Fists V1.3 Approved! |
That would be advisable indeed. Maybe create an appendix added to the tournament pack that handles all the rules coming with them homogenized to suit all factions. |
|
| Author: | jimmyzimms [ Sat Aug 26, 2017 12:51 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Imperial Fists V1.3 Approved! |
They're not shared though. For instance this list has different effects for being in trenches than say DKoK. |
|
| Author: | Graf_Spee [ Sat Aug 26, 2017 12:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Imperial Fists V1.3 Approved! |
jimmyzimms wrote: They're not shared though. For instance this list has different effects for being in trenches than say DKoK. exactly. but geometric layout and basic effects should be homogenized. different effect of used should be special ruls for each list separately |
|
| Author: | Graf_Spee [ Sun Aug 27, 2017 8:13 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Imperial Fists V1.3 Approved! |
Another 3 question: 1. Does landing in a minefield trigger a dangerous terrain test (from my point of view yes as it is an approach move, but want to have it confirmed ) 2. In said minnefield: A. Does disembarking trigger a test on the disembarked (as it would trigger overwatch fire) even if the landing craft disembarked the troops outside the minefield? Because actually they would have to move away from the craft in order to reach their disembarking location. B. Does the engage then trigger a second test after disembarking (if disembarked into the field) C. How would A. apply to troops with jumpbacks? 3. Does teleporting into a minefield trigger the minefield? As you would not know whether you teleport on a mine or not. |
|
| Author: | kyussinchains [ Sun Aug 27, 2017 11:57 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Imperial Fists V1.3 Approved! |
1. Yes, just as you'd take a DTT for landing in other terrain 2. A - only if the troops disembark into the minefield directly B - no, troops are placed within 5/15cm of the aircraft, they dont disembark then move into engagements, if they disembarked outside the minefield no test, if they landed in the minefield, they need to test C - no, it can be assumed that some kind of techno handwavium disables mines in the immediate vicinity |
|
| Author: | Graf_Spee [ Sun Aug 27, 2017 1:46 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Imperial Fists V1.3 Approved! |
Ok. Thanks. Consolidation after an engagement would then trigger normally. Does moving cautiously apply for the special nature of a minefield? Can a consolidation move be made cautiously, as it would not impair any reduction to the move? Is thereby a consolidation move always considered as cautious? What about eldar? Sorry for going all overboard with the questions. But in the case of minefields and their best use this all crosses my mind when considering different kinds of how to conduct engagements  .
|
|
| Author: | Kyrt [ Mon Aug 28, 2017 9:58 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Imperial Fists V1.3 Approved! |
Most people in my games play that any 'move' from A to B can be made cautiously, hence consolidations can. Eldar are a good example of why this makes sense - if they move cautiously their move is reduced to 5cm. |
|
| Author: | Graf_Spee [ Mon Aug 28, 2017 3:48 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Imperial Fists V1.3 Approved! |
Kyrt wrote: Most people in my games play that any 'move' from A to B can be made cautiously, hence consolidations can. Eldar are a good example of why this makes sense - if they move cautiously their move is reduced to 5cm. Exactly my point: it is only eldar and dark eldar that would suffer during a consolidation move made cautiously. The other races would not as they are limited to 5cm anyways. So that sits somewhat at odds. But I think this simply has to be accepted and in any case does not really belong here. |
|
| Author: | Graf_Spee [ Fri Sep 22, 2017 6:08 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Imperial Fists V1.3 Approved! |
Is the siege dreadnoughts heavy flamer considered as an extra attack in ff? Asking because the stats could be misread like that since the heavy flamer adds a second time a small arms ic entry in addition to the flamestorm cannon small arms ic entry. Or should it have that extra attack? |
|
| Author: | kyussinchains [ Fri Sep 22, 2017 6:57 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Imperial Fists V1.3 Approved! |
Just a single attack |
|
| Author: | Elrik [ Tue Sep 26, 2017 9:28 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Imperial Fists V1.3 Approved! |
At the EEC I played Imperial Fists and we discussed a little bit about how you are allowed to garrison with the fortifications you get in exchange of the rhinos. Both I and the other IF player at the tournament had read the sentence "These fortifications are set up with the formation they are part of and once set up cease to be "units" in that formation" as the fortifications are units in the formation during set up, and therefore can be used to "garrison away" from the objective to be in a more favourable position. The other players I discussed this with thought it was a reasonable reading of the rules. But then Richard L came up with the idea how to use it effectively(?). And we began to wonder if that was the intention of the rules. So I bring it up here for discussion. The main question is whether the fortifications are units and can garrison within 15 cm of an objective or if one of the Tacticals or Scouts has to be within 15 cm of the objective? I made a simple drawing of Richard's idea (he came up with it after our game... )Attachment: garrison.jpg [ 47.3 KiB | Viewed 5027 times ] |
|
| Author: | kyussinchains [ Tue Sep 26, 2017 9:53 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Imperial Fists V1.3 Approved! |
yes, this is indeed an issue, I am planning to change the rules in V1.4 so that all fortifications purchased either individually or as replacements for the transport option of a formation are deployed as per the standard rules and do not count as part of the formation so you cannot perform the trick in the diagram above I'm sorry if this caused any problems at the EEC |
|
| Author: | Elrik [ Tue Sep 26, 2017 10:22 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Imperial Fists V1.3 Approved! |
It caused no problems. I might had done so if the IF armies at the EEC had been made up of more tacticals in bunkers. One more question: Bunkers give a 3+ cover, IF gets a reinforced 4+ cover. Do they get to roll 3+/4+? or either 3+ or 4+/4+? Anyway I really like the theme of the army since it differs so much from the Codex Marines. But after the tournament I felt it was a little to defensive to play five games in a row. I got bored of overwatch at some points. Short thoughts after the tournament otherwise: - I want to try Assault Centurions in Land Raiders - Don't leave home without a Reaver Titan - sorry, you pretty fluffy Fellblade - Storm Talons and Thunderfire Cannons are awesome and fun - I want to use dreadnoughts and Vindicators, but don't know where... |
|
| Page 5 of 6 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|