Tactical Command
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/

Imperial Fists V1.3 Approved!
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=73&t=30578		 Page 6 of 6
Author:  kyussinchains [ Tue Sep 26, 2017 2:40 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Imperial Fists V1.3 Approved!
they should get a 4+ Reinforced armour save when in bunkers, this supersedes the standard 3+ cover save
Author:  Mrdiealot [ Mon Jan 22, 2018 11:10 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Imperial Fists V1.3 Approved!
After having played against the Imperial fists three times now, I have some thoughts about some possible balance issues, and some clarifications.

It's great that v1.4 will change the situation with the bunkers + garrisons being able to go anywhere on the table.

As bunkers have no defined base size, that they can be taken in great numbers, and they're impassable to War Engines it would seem that it would be possible to effectively shut off half the table to War Engines, or at the very least greatly limit where they can cross. Given that the Imperial Fist player can decide on whether to take bunkers when the opponent is known, this could be devastatingly effective against e.g. AMTL.

Having a defied base size would help somewhat against this exploit (which to be fair I haven't encountered) but maybe a limit on the number of formations that may take fortifications is needed. I would suggest 1/3 or 1/2 of the units with transport in the list, or alternatively that Scouts don't benefit from this rule. As is, Scouts become disproportionately hard to shift with Imperial Fist bunkers, and is an easy way to get tonnes of bunkers cheap.

The Q&A on fortified positions that is found in the Siege Masters list could be useful to have in the Imperial Fist list as well (even though the fact that it states that bunkers don't block LOS is a bit weird). It would help to make even more clear that the 3+ cover save is replaced by a 4+/4+.

An issue came up during the last game whether having the Walker special rule allowed re-rolls in an enemy Mine Field. The rules as written seems to allow this, but it would be nice if it was clarified for v1.4.

While it's clear that Bunkers give a cover save against Macro, it's not completely clear whether the same is true against Titan Killer attacks (which is a type of Macro attack that ignores Reinforced Armour).

Looking forward to v1.4! My experience meeting the list so far has been a bit frustrating, but it's a cool concept.
Author:  mordoten [ Mon Jan 22, 2018 3:40 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Imperial Fists V1.3 Approved!
I agree on the Scouts + bunkers issue. That makes the formation a tad too strong for their points i think. And i also think walker should apply to minefields, the less special rules the better. Also i really hope TK-attacks ignore bunker saves, otherwise thoose bunkers are crazy good.

The list is fun to meet though. And here in Sweden theres a really good player who uses it the most.
Author:  kyussinchains [ Mon Jan 22, 2018 7:25 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Imperial Fists V1.3 Approved!
I will get a new version uploaded tomorrow, workload permitting

I'm going to measure my FW bunkers tonight and base the measurements on that, inevitably the whole 'don't be an unsporting d!ck' rule being ignored means we need to define this ::)

On the minefields, it states clearly in masters of siege that they gain walker in minefields purchased as part of their force

On the bunker save rule, the armylist in this thread (which supersedes the netEA tournament pack in any disagreements btw) states that the 3+ bunker save is replaced by a 4+ reinforced armour save, no further clarification should be needed for this? We all know how reinforced armour works, right? ;)

Scouts will lose the bunker transport option to prevent spam abuse too, thanks for the suggestion
Author:  Mrdiealot [ Mon Jan 22, 2018 8:29 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Imperial Fists V1.3 Approved!
kyussinchains wrote:
I'm going to measure my FW bunkers tonight and base the measurements on that, inevitably the whole 'don't be an unsporting d!ck' rule being ignored means we need to define this


Maybe I'm just paranoid, but in my experience there is a subset of people who thinks that "because it doesn't say I can't do this it's totally OK if I do this".

kyussinchains wrote:
On the minefields, it states clearly in masters of siege that they gain walker in minefields purchased as part of their force


That part is perfectly clear. The disagreement was over whether enemies with Walker could use it to re-roll dangerous terrain tests in the minefield. I think it's pretty clear that enemy formations get to use Walker (it doesn't say that they don't), but my opponent had a different opinion.

kyussinchains wrote:
On the bunker save rule, the armylist in this thread (which supersedes the netEA tournament pack in any disagreements btw) states that the 3+ bunker save is replaced by a 4+ reinforced armour save, no further clarification should be needed for this? We all know how reinforced armour works, right? ;)


That's a good solution, didn't see that since I have been looking at the NetEA version. In the version on this page the wording is unambigous.

kyussinchains wrote:
Scouts will lose the bunker transport option to prevent spam abuse too, thanks for the suggestion
Probably the best solution.
Author:  mordoten [ Mon Jan 22, 2018 8:39 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Imperial Fists V1.3 Approved!
Cool! Thanks for the clarifications mate!
Author:  kyussinchains [ Mon Jan 22, 2018 9:45 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Imperial Fists V1.3 Approved!
The intention is that walkers gain no benefit crossing minefields, I will add that to v1.4
Page 6 of 6 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/