Tactical Command :: View topic - Forced moves (split from BA thread)

Frogbear: I was actually in favour of "engage on fail" for world eaters too.

zombocom wrote:

Frogbear: I was actually in favour of "engage on fail" for world eaters too.

Quote taken for future use

frogbear wrote:

zombocom wrote:

Frogbear: I was actually in favour of "engage on fail" for world eaters too.

Quote taken for future use

I believe I was vocally in favour of it in the development of your list.

Seconded. Any auto actions and forced moves are bad.

Hena wrote:

Seconded. Any auto actions and forced moves are bad.

Enemy zones of control force moves... being out of formation forces moves... not sure what is meant by "auto actions", but what's wrong with an occasional "forced move" effect?

Hena wrote:

Seconded. Any auto actions and forced moves are bad.

Enemy zones of control force moves... being out of formation forces moves... not sure what is meant by "auto actions", but what's wrong with an occasional "forced move" effect?

"A unit is never forced to move..."

Don't break such a 'spirit of the game' design.

Quote:

I would like to hear alternate wording proposals that mitigate your concerns, rather than simply "I don't like this".

Happy to work on something with you if you agree.

Author:	frogbear [ Fri Apr 30, 2010 12:20 am ]
Post subject:	Forced moves (split from BA thread)
Am I right in that there is an 'always charge rule' in this list? I specifically remember people having issue with this in the World Eater list. Low and behold it shows its headd in a Marine list! Is it also a compulsory move? Sad day for Epic when it becomes 40K IMO. Compulsory moves should not exist in Epic (yes it has been discussed once in regards to a combat situation, but for a move?) Do us a favour and shelve your 40K books. No compulsory moves.

Author:	zombocom [ Fri Apr 30, 2010 12:23 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Blood Angels v2.09
Frogbear: I was actually in favour of "engage on fail" for world eaters too.

Author:	frogbear [ Fri Apr 30, 2010 1:09 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Blood Angels v2.09
zombocom wrote: Frogbear: I was actually in favour of "engage on fail" for world eaters too. Quote taken for future use

Author:	zombocom [ Fri Apr 30, 2010 1:22 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Blood Angels v2.09
frogbear wrote: zombocom wrote: Frogbear: I was actually in favour of "engage on fail" for world eaters too. Quote taken for future use I believe I was vocally in favour of it in the development of your list.

Author:	frogbear [ Fri Apr 30, 2010 2:38 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Blood Angels v2.09
zombocom wrote: frogbear wrote: zombocom wrote: Frogbear: I was actually in favour of "engage on fail" for world eaters too. Quote taken for future use I believe I was vocally in favour of it in the development of your list. Such things as the inclusion in this list and quotes like this will no doubt form a basis for discussions on the Blood Rage rule as well Cheers Mr Z

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

Forced moves (split from BA thread) http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=18301	Page 1 of 5

Author:	Chroma [ Fri Apr 30, 2010 7:00 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Blood Angels v2.09
Hena wrote: Seconded. Any auto actions and forced moves are bad. Enemy zones of control force moves... being out of formation forces moves... not sure what is meant by "auto actions", but what's wrong with an occasional "forced move" effect?

Author:	Morgan Vening [ Fri Apr 30, 2010 7:19 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Blood Angels v2.09
Chroma wrote: Hena wrote: Seconded. Any auto actions and forced moves are bad. Enemy zones of control force moves... being out of formation forces moves... not sure what is meant by "auto actions", but what's wrong with an occasional "forced move" effect? There's a substantive difference, IMO, between "You have to move somewhere", and "you have to move in a specific way". With the two examples you've given above, ZOC forces an engage (but no requirement on how you do this, it's perfectly legal to 'engage away' from the enemy) or move 'anywhere'. With the out of formation, you're required to take an action that requires a move, but how you deal with it, is up to you. In the Red Thirst rule (and an earlier version of Blood Rage), you're required to Engage 'towards the enemy'. As was brought up in the Rage discussion, this can cause things like out of coherency (which Red Thirst specifies against, but which could be cumbersome), and Dangerous Terrain tests and other 'gamey-able' situations. In the examples you cite, you're never forced to potentially kill off your own things, and still have some control over their fate. The 'auto action' refers to the way in which an Engage can never fail. If I want to Engage something, pass or fail on the Initiative Test still has me Engaging. Morgan Vening

Author:	frogbear [ Fri Apr 30, 2010 9:06 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Blood Angels v2.09
Chroma wrote: Hena wrote: Seconded. Any auto actions and forced moves are bad. Enemy zones of control force moves... being out of formation forces moves... not sure what is meant by "auto actions", but what's wrong with an occasional "forced move" effect? Both those examples still leave the strategy up to the player. Any forced move that takes strategy away from a player (such as you must move here, in this direction and shut the hell up I do not want to hear any more about it), is not strategy. It is micro-representation that is not required in a game that is supposed to represent a 1/300th scale of a battlefield. A forced move is different to a requirement that must/should be met (otherwise there are consequences) which is the distinction that people keep confusing with such a discussion. - Pg16 of the Official Rules 1.7 Movement Quote: "A unit is never forced to move..." Even when destruction is imminent, a player always has the choice. Removing this choice degrades the strategic element of the game (40K rules anyone?). If people want 40K, go play it. For people that want a more strategic game without such restrictions, Epic is the answer. Don't break such a 'spirit of the game' design.

Author:	Evil and Chaos [ Fri Apr 30, 2010 9:29 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Blood Angels v2.09
Quote: Don't break such a 'spirit of the game' design. Few people are more concerned about the spirit of the game than I am... and I think it's fine, in concept, if not in implementation. I would like to hear alternate wording proposals that mitigate your concerns, rather than simply "I don't like this".

Author:	frogbear [ Fri Apr 30, 2010 9:44 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Blood Angels v2.09
Evil and Chaos wrote: Quote: I would like to hear alternate wording proposals that mitigate your concerns, rather than simply "I don't like this". I will go through the 23+ pages of the World Eaters thread and find some for you Seriously though, a Blood Rage rule could easily be shared by BA and Khorne Marines. After all the rage comes from the same place does it not? Happy to work on something with you if you agree...

Author:	Dobbsy [ Fri Apr 30, 2010 10:02 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Blood Angels v2.09
Any formation in a World Eaters army (excluding Chaos Navy or spacecraft) that fails its Action Test (see 1.6.2 of the Epic: Armageddon rulebook) must make an Engage action if enemy are within range. Otherwise, they must make one move towards the nearest enemy formation. The formation may not regroup or shoot. That's how I worded it for my WE list but "must move" can easily be changed to "should move" or whatever is felt appropriate.

Page 1 of 5	All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/