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

[Far-fetched ideas] Supporting fire range 20 cm
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=28340		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  Ulrik [ Wed Oct 15, 2014 11:49 am ]
Post subject:  [Far-fetched ideas] Supporting fire range 20 cm
MikeT wrote:
Ulrik wrote:
And after that I'll get them to change Russes to 3+ save (no RA, 50 pts) and support fire FF range to 20 cm!


While I'd potentially agree on the Leman Russ front, I'm curious why you'd propose 20cm support fire range.



Mutual defensive support. Two formations can stand on top of each other, but if the attacker doesn't want to declare them intermingled it's too easy to just clip one of them (most of the attacking units in range of just one or two units). The attacked formation can then counter charge and bring in extra bodies, but the other formation is stuck juuuuust outside support range. 20cm is a good range because it's equal to the defenders 15cm + 5cm counter charge.

I'm pretty sure I abused that several times during the EEC, but the one that sticks in my mind is (of course) the one that went against me:

In our game I had a broken Warp Spider host hiding between the legs of the Warlock titan, everyone in b2b for cover and standing as close to it as they possibly could. You moved a phalanx into range of one of them and just outside 15cm of Warlock titan, which meant that I got 3 or 4 of the spiders surrounding it into combat while the titan stood around and picked its nose.

(Mike had already lost the game on atrocious Monolith saves, so I wasn't too bothered about it!)

Would it tip balance too far to the defender? Maybe. But as it is I think there's too much the attacker can do to dictate assaults and not enough you can do to set up a defense.
Author:  Tiny-Tim [ Wed Oct 15, 2014 1:24 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: [Far-fetched ideas] Supporting fire range 20 cm
Interesting proposal. However, it would change the dynamic for most lists and could show up balancing issues.

I would say that if we ever looked at rewriting the rules it would be something to test, but in the interests of current stability I would not look to take this any further.
Author:  Ulrik [ Wed Oct 15, 2014 2:44 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: [Far-fetched ideas] Supporting fire range 20 cm
Agreed - I'd love to try it, but it would take too much testing to be practical in the foreseeable future.

I do still think that there's too much advantage for being to attacker in assaults - what little you can do to set up a defense is too easily negated.
Author:  MikeT [ Wed Oct 15, 2014 7:04 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: [Far-fetched ideas] Supporting fire range 20 cm
How about something like allowing the defender to claim intermingling as well; as you said the Warlock just passively watching the warp spiders getting gunned down was faintly ridiculous.
Author:  jimmyzimms [ Wed Oct 15, 2014 7:17 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: [Far-fetched ideas] Supporting fire range 20 cm
I'd rather see the above than the former
Author:  Ulrik [ Wed Oct 15, 2014 7:20 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: [Far-fetched ideas] Supporting fire range 20 cm
MikeT wrote:
How about something like allowing the defender to claim intermingling as well; as you said the Warlock just passively watching the warp spiders getting gunned down was faintly ridiculous.


That could also work - it gives some slightly different results, depending on if the "protecting" formation brings firepower or just combat modifiers (outnumbering, inspiring). Defensive intermingling could allow a big formation to spread combat modifiers over a larger area than just where it can use support attacks, but it's also more risky for the defending player (you might get as much as +3 or +4 for shifting outnumber bonus and inspiring, but you could still end up with your big formation broken from some unlucky rolls).
Author:  Ulrik [ Wed Oct 15, 2014 7:24 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: [Far-fetched ideas] Supporting fire range 20 cm
I suspect that 20cm support would be quicker in a game - instead of counter charging even more units you simply measure 20cm instead of 15cm for support attacks.
Author:  MikeT [ Thu Oct 16, 2014 11:20 am ]
Post subject:  Re: [Far-fetched ideas] Supporting fire range 20 cm
It would speed up the specific issue you've highlighted, but wouldn't help in another situation I've encountered before. Consider the following situation:

A broken BTS formation takes refuge within a different freindly unbroken formation. Assuming the enemy can get within 15cm of the broken formation whilst staying outside of 5cm of the unbroken one, that broken formation can be assaulted and killed before support fire can be resolved. Similarly support fire of any range won't help a Manticore formation being assaulted, even one surrounded by an Infantry Company supposedly there to guard it.

Either of these proposals are large game changing suggestions and so this is very much a thought exercise, but it's a fun one.
Author:  mspaetauf [ Thu Oct 16, 2014 11:37 am ]
Post subject:  Re: [Far-fetched ideas] Supporting fire range 20 cm
The whole point of the 15 cm range is to BE outside the Support+Counter Charge range.

If I position my attacking formation in a way that is beneficial to me because I manage to flank attack your formation at a weak point, I should be rewarded.

I think you people all underestimate the scale that E:A represents. If you are in a company sized formation of 100 to 200 individuals, hardly ever is one side going to know what is happening at the other end. Only in the heat of battle the whole formation, based on what the commander decides, gets ordered back or forward.
Immediate information only exists in computer games - don't confuse it with real life ;)

Also remember breaking isn't being destroyed, it is just a fallback to a hopefully better position to reorganize.

Also I dread the power of horde units like 'uge Ork formations should the support range ever be increased (in addition to a plethora of other problems).
Author:  Kyrt [ Thu Oct 16, 2014 12:30 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: [Far-fetched ideas] Supporting fire range 20 cm
MikeT wrote:
How about something like allowing the defender to claim intermingling as well; as you said the Warlock just passively watching the warp spiders getting gunned down was faintly ridiculous.

This would certainly be more "realistic", since it seems what you object to is the arbitrary delineation based on formation rather than physical location.

Don't get me wrong, I think the abstraction of Epic is enough for it all to be explained away relatively justifiably, but I've often thought it'd be nice to do something about intermingling. It doesn't seem right somehow that the attacker decides entirely. In 3rd edition, ISTR assaults simply consisted of everything within 15cm regardless of detachment. It had its own problems of course but I think we could make it work reasonably well for EA.

You could do it so the defender can also decide (i.e. if either of players wants them to be), or lots of other ways e.g. distinguish between formations that are next to each other and those that are actually intermixed (similar to crossfire), with the latter always being part of the initial assault.

So, when exactly is the development for a community 5th edition ("Epic: Tactical Command") going to start then?
Author:  Ulrik [ Thu Oct 16, 2014 2:03 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: [Far-fetched ideas] Supporting fire range 20 cm
mspaetauf wrote:
The whole point of the 15 cm range is to BE outside the Support+Counter Charge range.

If I position my attacking formation in a way that is beneficial to me because I manage to flank attack your formation at a weak point, I should be rewarded.


I respectfully disagree. The issue is that it's so much easier to put an attacking formation in such a position than it is to put a defensive formation in a position to prevent it.


Mike, I see your point about support being denied simply because the defending formation is wiped out. I think your idea is better, and also easier to understand (15cm being so key already). There would be two ways to handle it:

A) First the attacker declares what formations he wants to be intermingled, and then the defender gets to declare defensive intermingling. That way a formation is included if either side wants

b) Intermingled formations ALWAYS count as one formation for assaults. This way the defender gets the only say, as he's the one that positions the formations within 5cm of each other.

It would be something we could only consider for a "TacComms edition", but personally I'm tempted to start playtesting it now :)
Author:  Kyrt [ Thu Oct 16, 2014 2:18 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: [Far-fetched ideas] Supporting fire range 20 cm
There are loads of things I'd like to see in a new edition (eg macro separated out into AP and AT). In all seriousness I doubt a community (democratic-ish) effort for a new EA would be possible, too many ideas. What -might- be possible is a new version of the rulebook containing only better wording of the current rules.
Author:  jimmyzimms [ Thu Oct 16, 2014 4:18 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: [Far-fetched ideas] Supporting fire range 20 cm
Ulrik wrote:
A) First the attacker declares what formations he wants to be intermingled, and then the defender gets to declare defensive intermingling. That way a formation is included if either side wants

I dig this, alot

Ulrik wrote:
It would be something we could only consider for a "TacComms edition", but personally I'm tempted to start playtesting it now :)

On the risk of sounding like a paid shill (I might be a shill but rest assured, I'm not paid ;D ) this is largely the concept of the EW Ruleset. Honestly, give it a whirl. I've even ported many lists over to it and it plays very well as an EA 2.0 (MW separated AP/AT, additional abilities, non-GW based, etc)
Author:  GR00V3R [ Thu Oct 16, 2014 11:04 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: [Far-fetched ideas] Supporting fire range 20 cm
I remember the conundrum of how to improve defenders in assaults being "solved" at one point in E:A by (what I thought was a very smart decision) to allow units with the Commander ability to declare formations intermingled in defense. Pretty much exactly what Ulrik stated above (see jimmyzimms quoteblock). I think this rule was in the first E:A Compendium I started playing with.

On paper, this would seem to create imbalance, but my recollection is that in practise it did not. Very simple to implement and play.

Anyone else remember playing this? Is my recollection wrong?
Author:  Commissar Holt [ Fri Oct 17, 2014 5:53 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: [Far-fetched ideas] Supporting fire range 20 cm
Wasn't it in the 2008 handbook?

I remember too to play commander ability that way, and even used it, yet not won everytime. It would be cool to be allowed currently.
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/