| Tactical Command http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/ |
|
| Allocating Special Weapon Effects http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=17430 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | nealhunt [ Tue Dec 15, 2009 10:51 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Allocating Special Weapon Effects |
I'm trying to figure out if this is still messing with or if it's something we live with because fixing it is going to be more trouble than it's worth (assuming it can really be improved in a meaningful way at all). Well, darnit... here's the broken link. |
|
| Author: | alansa [ Wed Dec 16, 2009 10:21 am ] |
| Post subject: | Allocating Special Weapon Effects |
what is the third option? Or do we not care about the details for the purpose of this vote, just make it Make it favourable to the attacker somehow - we'll decide on the best way to do that later? |
|
| Author: | Moscovian [ Wed Dec 16, 2009 2:43 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Allocating Special Weapon Effects |
It seems like the 'favor attacker' option would skew things toward armies that are more specialized such as Eldar (lots of lance & disrupt) and this may have bigger impacts down the road. It also strikes me as more hassle than its worth given the primary target are mixed formations. I could easily see this type of thing degenerating into an argument about being just as gamey as the defender allocating hits to his least desirable pieces. |
|
| Author: | nealhunt [ Wed Dec 16, 2009 2:54 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Allocating Special Weapon Effects |
Quote: (alansa @ Dec. 16 2009, 09:21 ) what is the third option? This or some close variant (i.e. whatever clarifications are needed): Quote: special ability hits should be allocated with “normal†|
|
| Author: | Mephiston [ Wed Dec 16, 2009 2:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Allocating Special Weapon Effects |
Leave it as is with the FAQ that the defender must maximize the number of hits (so no soaking hits with LV's) but after that the defender chooses. What go's around comes around after all. |
|
| Author: | Moscovian [ Wed Dec 16, 2009 3:06 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Allocating Special Weapon Effects |
Or you could present it as an alternate method of play and simply leave it there for people to try. Similar to the alternate air rules that you drafted (which IMO should be included in the document as an optional way to play). |
|
| Author: | alansa [ Wed Dec 16, 2009 3:06 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Allocating Special Weapon Effects |
Quote: (nealhunt @ Dec. 16 2009, 13:54 ) Quote: (alansa @ Dec. 16 2009, 09:21 ) what is the third option? This or some close variant (i.e. whatever clarifications are needed): Quote: special ability hits should be allocated with “normal†|
|
| Author: | Evil and Chaos [ Wed Dec 16, 2009 3:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Allocating Special Weapon Effects |
I simply think it should be either defender or attacker allocates, with no subjective middle ground in between. With the Defender getting the clear margin in this poll, I shall return to the 'selfish' defender allocates style. |
|
| Author: | nealhunt [ Wed Dec 16, 2009 3:34 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Allocating Special Weapon Effects |
Quote: (alansa @ Dec. 16 2009, 14:06 ) Problem with that rule, as I've argued elsewhere, is that the word 'appropriate' is too subjective; Yep. I agree that all the theoretical problems you list can happen. In practice, though, it's rare that such things come up. In any case, it's clear which way the wind is blowing on this poll. I think it's best dropped. |
|
| Author: | alansa [ Wed Dec 16, 2009 4:34 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Allocating Special Weapon Effects |
The most 'appropriate' method would work in the majority of cases but would require a huge number of rules to do with really complex cases. that's the problem, the number of rules required to tie it down. You could leave it somewhat vague and say the defender has the final word where in cases where the mix of special abilities and targets causes conflicts. Ignoring all that, it would certainly be an improvement. As there another way of providing an improvement, be it flawed, but which requires less verbiage in terms of explaining the rule? What about the 'Bundle some/all special weapons along with MW into the second round of allocation" idea? Not perfect in every case, but again an improvement in most cases. This rule does assume that units that are vulnerable to special shots are screened by units that are not. And that an upshot is that an uneven distribution of shots can occur such that units futher back get nothing allocated against them when the otherwise would do. But that's the case with the MW second round rule anyway. |
|
| Author: | Chroma [ Wed Dec 16, 2009 4:51 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Allocating Special Weapon Effects |
Quote: (alansa @ Dec. 16 2009, 15:34 ) This rule does assume that units that are vulnerable to special shots are screened by units that are not. The thing is, in some armies there are units included that are *supposed* to "soak" fire from hitting valuable targets; Grots and Gaunts come directly to mind, and, perhaps, even Lesser Daemons. I'm still strongly on the side of "defender chooses". |
|
| Author: | Jeridian [ Wed Dec 16, 2009 5:12 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Allocating Special Weapon Effects |
The votes are swinging to remaining 'Defender Allocates' but in reality this isn't happening. The Defender is under immense intimidation and pressure to allocate what the Attacker wants. It's simply 'Attacker Allocates By Proxy'. |
|
| Author: | alansa [ Wed Dec 16, 2009 5:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Allocating Special Weapon Effects |
Quote: (Chroma @ Dec. 16 2009, 15:51 ) Quote: (alansa @ Dec. 16 2009, 15:34 ) This rule does assume that units that are vulnerable to special shots are screened by units that are not. The thing is, in some armies there are units included that are *supposed* to "soak" fire from hitting valuable targets; Grots and Gaunts come directly to mind, and, perhaps, even Lesser Daemons. I'm still strongly on the side of "defender chooses". so you're saying that bunging in special weapons along with MW reduces their soak ability and therefore their value? We're ok with MW having a chance to skip over this 'heat sink' but that's because those sink unit types have already been costed to account for that. Putting special weapons along with MW or any of the other solutions propoesed, might be good ideas and address (to a degree) the issue raised, but now we have the problem of the effect this would have on list balance. I got that about right? All rules changes must be neutral in terms of list balance... |
|
| Author: | Chroma [ Wed Dec 16, 2009 5:17 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Allocating Special Weapon Effects |
Quote: (Jeridian @ Dec. 16 2009, 16:12 ) The Defender is under immense intimidation and pressure to allocate what the Attacker wants. It's simply 'Attacker Allocates By Proxy'. WHAT?! I have *never* seen that occur, not in friendly games nor in tournaments. I've only experienced joking about "getting better aim" and such when there's a "bad" allocation for the Attacker. |
|
| Author: | alansa [ Wed Dec 16, 2009 5:29 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Allocating Special Weapon Effects |
I'm not sure I've seen it happen either in rl. If i've allocated less than generously (but perfectly legally) I think most of my opponents have taken it on the chin (sure they didn't like it) But pressure is, or has been, expressed on this forum. And the question has been raised after all, showing that some are not happy with it. A fix has already been implemented for a long time in terms of one kind of special weapon (macro-weapons) so an acceptance to address this issue was adopted, albiet a long time ago. Where other kinds of special weapon abilities considered at the time? Where they excluded from the second round for a good reason and it was deemed important that MW should be an exception? Or where other specials effects simply not thought about? |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|