Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 78 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

If you could change the rules...

 Post subject: Re: If you could change the rules...
PostPosted: Sun Dec 15, 2019 3:19 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2014 10:39 pm
Posts: 88
Location: Banjoland
Yes, but I was more thinking of "rewriting" the rules so that the faq/clarifications was incorporated into the rules. Even if the faq/clarification for one paragraph is written on the same page, I'd prefer if it was actually in the rules text.

I understand that there are many different opinions in this matter, not to speak of all different opinions on how some rules are to be interpreted etc. And I am not even sure where I stand in the question in rewriting/updating the rules to 2.0 (or whatever it would be).


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: If you could change the rules...
PostPosted: Sun Dec 15, 2019 5:00 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2014 12:44 am
Posts: 180
Elrik wrote:
Yes, but I was more thinking of "rewriting" the rules so that the faq/clarifications was incorporated into the rules. Even if the faq/clarification for one paragraph is written on the same page, I'd prefer if it was actually in the rules text.

I understand that there are many different opinions in this matter, not to speak of all different opinions on how some rules are to be interpreted etc. And I am not even sure where I stand in the question in rewriting/updating the rules to 2.0 (or whatever it would be).


I believe that was the intent of MeBrainBeDead’s project, here:

http://www.taccmd.tacticalwargames.net/ ... hp?t=33615

You can use the webpage version, or you can PDFerise it!

On the topic of an EA 2.0: I know that’s something I’d certainly be keen for, even if it’s just one person’s work with a helpful eye cast over it by all the very experienced players here. Not to supplant the first, by any means, but there are definitely some things that could be done to improve the system even further.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: If you could change the rules...
PostPosted: Mon Dec 16, 2019 11:55 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 8:24 pm
Posts: 9453
Location: Manalapan, FL
Just wanted to point out that's what Steel Crown did with the Exodus Wars ruleset and everyone went "meh". The goal was a clean room reimplementation of EA and update.

_________________
He's a lawyer and a super-villian. That's like having a shark with a bazooka!

-I HAVE NO POINT
-Penal Legion-Fan list
-Help me make Whitescars not suck!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: If you could change the rules...
PostPosted: Mon Dec 16, 2019 6:15 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 22, 2015 5:43 pm
Posts: 274
Location: Germany/UK
The Imperial Bunker

Would like it to negate IC weapons, it can survive blasts, pinpoint weapons, deathstrikes, but toasts troops and causes hits under a template? its always seem to me personally to be odd considering troops would go deeper into a notional bomb proof part of the bunker when under attack

Or perhaps allow troops inside an actual cover save with a modifier?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: If you could change the rules...
PostPosted: Mon Dec 16, 2019 7:40 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 8:54 pm
Posts: 2279
Location: Cornwall
jimmyzimms wrote:
Just wanted to point out that's what Steel Crown did with the Exodus Wars ruleset and everyone went "meh". The goal was a clean room reimplementation of EA and update.


This was a great project but imho failed because of the switch to D10s. Had it been easy to convert existing lists to the new rules it might have taken flight like several of the specialist games “community editions”. Even going to D12s might have worked.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: If you could change the rules...
PostPosted: Tue Dec 17, 2019 12:12 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2014 12:44 am
Posts: 180
jimmyzimms wrote:
Just wanted to point out that's what Steel Crown did with the Exodus Wars ruleset and everyone went "meh". The goal was a clean room reimplementation of EA and update.

O yes! I am always glad to be reminded of Exodus Wars!

I think we ought to have another discussion about that on here—I’d really like to understand it better. How are multi-hit units treated? And… I must say, I still like the humble D6 for practicality reasons, even though EW’s D10(? did I remember rightly?) gives more range to variables. I agree with @Blip: it’s definitely a hurdle (though Apocalypse’s use of D12s may normalise those somewhat).

I do think there’s also room for a less clean-room update to EA. I guess why I would like that over EW is that we already have a really well-managed and balanced system, and a community, and a bunch of innovative, experienced players for EA. Updates on the scale I would like to see would be things like blast template allocations happening more like normal shooting, units counting as intermingled against shooting and combat, Reinforced Armour being split into two values, perhaps a Titan class that models multi-hit units better, etc.. The sorts of annoying, rules-y inconsistencies that are exploitable but not really for a fun or realistic reason; and except for poor titans, I think many of those small changes could easily be absorbed into EA without causing major upset (e.g. versus switching dice).

(Secretly, I would also personally really like to see activations tied to HQ units rather than to number of units. A bit of an extreme pipe dream for some, but that could fix issues with formations being constrained in size and shape so much, and could provide the same Commander benefits as now but as part of a more general system that can be targeted as a tactic. But I digress! :D)

So, perhaps I need to be giving EW it’s proper dues and thinking of it as more of a test-bed for EA 2.0 ideas?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: If you could change the rules...
PostPosted: Tue Dec 17, 2019 2:00 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 8:24 pm
Posts: 9453
Location: Manalapan, FL
Blip wrote:
jimmyzimms wrote:
Just wanted to point out that's what Steel Crown did with the Exodus Wars ruleset and everyone went "meh". The goal was a clean room reimplementation of EA and update.


This was a great project but imho failed because of the switch to D10s. Had it been easy to convert existing lists to the new rules it might have taken flight like several of the specialist games “community editions”. Even going to D12s might have worked.


took me about an hour to literally port the original 3 EA lists to D10s (I did it on the train to work, then finished on the way back on a single round trip). Like, the formatting in word took longer. Not sure how that holds water.
I agree a D12 is a better choice however as then the probability curve isn't resembling but functional the same; You can just double the number. Good point, Blip!

It is important to note that the only game mechanics that actually changed was to move to using line strafing which tbf, EA aerospace rules are crap and laughable, but I'll admit that's going to be the stickler as it requires a change by the players. Grognards like myself used to playing Battletech as a wee lad during the FASA glory days were already used to that so it was a lesser jump for us admittedly.

The ground rules however were all the same though individual abilities were in some cases broken into two keywords for example. Such as Infiltrator became Stormtrooper and another one that I am failing to remember the name of. However for an EA list that just meant the unit got both.

I did have to add in Mounted which was a notable absence so fair play.

Thinking Stone wrote:
I think we ought to have another discussion about that on here—I’d really like to understand it better. How are multi-hit units treated? And… I must say, I still like the humble D6 for practicality reasons, even though EW’s D10(? did I remember rightly?) gives more range to variables. I agree with @Blip: it’s definitely a hurdle (though Apocalypse’s use of D12s may normalise those somewhat).

We still have the thread around i think
[b]edit: yeah here http://taccmd.tacticalwargames.net/view ... 76&t=25034

Thinking Stone wrote:
I think many of those small changes could easily be absorbed into EA without causing major upset (e.g. versus switching dice).

I agree there's a lot of small changes that could have happened. ERC will not change them and without a clearly respected authority to champion that, it's missed the window of opportunity. Alas...Neil Hunt, you should have taken the wheel.

_________________
He's a lawyer and a super-villian. That's like having a shark with a bazooka!

-I HAVE NO POINT
-Penal Legion-Fan list
-Help me make Whitescars not suck!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: If you could change the rules...
PostPosted: Tue Dec 17, 2019 8:39 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2014 10:39 pm
Posts: 88
Location: Banjoland
I must have missed EW completely. (Or my long time memory is now just as bad as my short time memory...)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: If you could change the rules...
PostPosted: Wed Dec 18, 2019 5:25 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2014 12:44 am
Posts: 180
jimmyzimms wrote:
[(snip)]
Thinking Stone wrote:
I think many of those small changes could easily be absorbed into EA without causing major upset (e.g. versus switching dice).

I agree there's a lot of small changes that could have happened. ERC will not change them and without a clearly respected authority to champion that, it's missed the window of opportunity. Alas...Neil Hunt, you should have taken the wheel.


As usual, @jimmyzimms, interesting indeed! Some reading for me to procrastinate with :P

It is interesting how gaming communities change or remain the same over time. I wonder: had the honourable Mr Hunt taken the wheel, would we actually have had EA 2.0 à la the Necromunda Community Edition? Or BFG:XR? (There might actually still be enough steam to do some rules mods to BFG beyond lists!). It’s curious how EA’s community differs even from Epic 2E’s in that regard.

Though as an honest reflection, I suspect we’re in the twilight of the ERC, and Epic UK, The Ozzie Heresy, and Epic Fr (and so on) might be the future—and some of those I could definitely see making smaller changes.

I think really the only thing stopping someone just making an EA 2.0 is that all us think-y types are just plain too busy. Use MeBrainBeDead’s edit of EA1.0 for the text, get some people annoyed by concept inconsistency to make some suggestions, add in changes from experienced gamers, get a wise and experienced peep to just write the thing down, and present the whole thing as a fun folly that we’d like people to look at and have fun with.

I reckon we actually have all of that; we really just need to start off with small, obvious improvements, and someone to write it down.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: If you could change the rules...
PostPosted: Thu Apr 09, 2020 4:23 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2016 2:30 am
Posts: 840
Location: Campbelltown area (Sydney) NSW
junkstar wrote:
The Imperial Bunker

Would like it to negate IC weapons, it can survive blasts, pinpoint weapons, deathstrikes, but toasts troops and causes hits under a template? its always seem to me personally to be odd considering troops would go deeper into a notional bomb proof part of the bunker when under attack

Or perhaps allow troops inside an actual cover save with a modifier?



I found that the defensive armies like Imperial Fists, Baran Siege Masters that I have faced already been have almost impossible to defeat. Their defensive abilities already, and the small chance you can get into range to use IC weapons against the troops inside the bunker and similar defences, means you might actually get a chance to take the enemy out.

Few armies, apart from some Tau builds, about 1/3 of the guard armies, and the odd xenos army has the ability to perform seiges that will be able to defeat the defensive terrain of Imperial fists , etc.

Look at some of the Imperial fist defences. Troops get a 4+ re-rollable save in trenches, bastions & trenches. Bastions also get an imperial force field when you add a techmarine, automatically get a thunderfire cannon, transports 8, is fearless with DC3 - crits only remove an extra point of damage. Their bunkers get a 4+ RA save that replaces the normal 3+ save. Troops in trenches gain a first strike ability.

When you add in the fact that the defenders in these defensive armies normally have access to a lot artillery, close support and close combat troops. They also have enough tanks, heavy tanks, and other support they can get with long ranged attacks, and in many cases have MW or TK weapons.

I faced an Imperial fist army with a top tier Ork Feral army list which had 5 Orkasaurus mounted formations backed up by a formation of 3 steam gargants. Indirect fire broke the steam gargants who could not get inrange before they were taken out. The Orkasaurus had to deal with enemy flankers and the defensive line. So much un the way of thunderfire cannons, thudd guns and other indirect fire came my way. Disrupt weaponry, lots of ATSKNF or fearless.

I lost 2 steam gargants, my junka brigade, 2 boarboyz hordes, 3 orkasaurus, with the entire compliment of infantry that were mounted on them. My opponent had lost a landspeeder formation, a scout formation, I almost killed of his fellblade, and broke a tactical formation that was flanking. I could not get past his damnable defence line. I did not even get a chance to reach the defence line. Hell I had a 4th Orkasaurus going around the flank that reduced a marine formation set up in a building by 1/3, but lost half my troops on board, and 5 of my 6 DC to the Orkasaurus.

If I had some IC weaponry that had some range I would have had a chance, or could have taken the amount of fire coming towards my steam gargants some.

I think that bunkers, and bastions should lose 1D3 troops mounted in them when they suffer a critical hit, or if the bunker is hit by IC weapons. I also think the Bastion should explode in the same manner as most DC 3 War Engines, even though it is immobile.

I am building an Imperial fist army, so I say these things because I feel theat list is a bit OP.

I know the fists list is vulnerable to armies that have a lot of planetfall formations and unless you can get overwhelming support fire, thay can also suffer once they drop down and have finished their assault, as unengaged imperial first defenders hit the enemy who are sitting in the open and thus vulnerable to counter fire. Also the defenders can be set to overwatch, and the defenders may lose a lot too many before they assault.

EA is a game of rock, paper, scissors, with dice rolls, terrain, tactics and some luck involved.

Making a set of rules for a list that makes it too OP, or removing rules that make it OP are not fair to others,especially as the game and the various army lists are supposed to be balanced (well mostly).

_________________
6mm wargaming is just like 25mm wargaming with more units fitting on the same size table. Thus bigger games to get lost in and avoid the hassles of everyday living, and offerings for the dice gods.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: If you could change the rules...
PostPosted: Sat Apr 18, 2020 2:22 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2020 7:18 pm
Posts: 10
I'd probably iron out the strategy rating differences to 1 (Lost and Damned, Orks), 2 (Imperial Guard, Dark Eldar, Chaos Marines, Tau, Necrons) and 3 (Eldar, Marines). There's too much variance in Strategy rating for it to be particularly fluff appropriate and it makes it too predictable who will get first turn.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: If you could change the rules...
PostPosted: Sat Apr 18, 2020 2:36 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2016 2:30 am
Posts: 840
Location: Campbelltown area (Sydney) NSW
I would make marines, Eldar, Dark Eldar, Chaos Marines all 3. Squats, AMTL, Knights, Skitarii, Rogue Traders, Sisters and Guard all 2, Necrons Orks, LotD, Arbites, and Tyranids all 1. The strategy ratings are all still close enough so you can get a chance to go first that round, and it is a bit more thematic and realistic. It also make it so Eldar and Marines are not the top dogs all the time by adding in DE and CM.

_________________
6mm wargaming is just like 25mm wargaming with more units fitting on the same size table. Thus bigger games to get lost in and avoid the hassles of everyday living, and offerings for the dice gods.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: If you could change the rules...
PostPosted: Sun Apr 19, 2020 2:14 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2020 7:18 pm
Posts: 10
Deb wrote:
I would make marines, Eldar, Dark Eldar, Chaos Marines all 3. Squats, AMTL, Knights, Skitarii, Rogue Traders, Sisters and Guard all 2, Necrons Orks, LotD, Arbites, and Tyranids all 1. The strategy ratings are all still close enough so you can get a chance to go first that round, and it is a bit more thematic and realistic. It also make it so Eldar and Marines are not the top dogs all the time by adding in DE and CM.


I personally wouldn't add CSM and DE to the top spot as the former are insane Chaos worshippers who are often rotting away or badly mutated, and the latter are ad hoc warbands of sadists who lack the psychic powers of their Craftworlld kin. I would probably add Titan Legions and Skitarii to the top band as they actually have functional command and control structures and network centric warfare. I'd also be hesitant about dropping Tyranids to the bottom tier, though I can see the argument for Necrons.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: If you could change the rules...
PostPosted: Fri Apr 24, 2020 1:03 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2019 7:10 am
Posts: 98
Skitarii should be top tier for sure


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: If you could change the rules...
PostPosted: Sat May 02, 2020 8:13 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 1:37 am
Posts: 128
A fairly simple, small change that I would like to see would be to have activation rolls have a cumulative -1 for retaining.
“But wait, when would that ever come into play?”
Ah, just at the end stages of a turn, if one player is significantly lower on activations than the other. I would like to class these end-stage activations as a form of retain, with cumulative -1s to activate. This would represent a more tightly organised force being easier to command against a larger, more spread out foe.
But in gameplay terms, it would mean that more upgrades may be taken by formations in tournament games,so half the battle isn’t just about baking as many activations as possible into your list.
May make for some more varied list building?

Regarding a “2.0” community edition, I don’t know why anyone would be against it. If it was still essentially the same game, just with the over a decades worth of playtesting experience used to iron out inconsistencies and loopholes.
Things that are simply game-y could be rewritten out (by community consensus). Not sure about clipping assaults etc.

Agreed about shooting into intermingled formations, should be doable.

And the old extra armour value being broken down further.

Otherwise, just a tightening up of the writing. I like the clarity of the AOS rules, with keywords and such, but that would be a full rewrite.

I would also like to see a more advanced or logical command and control system. Maybe with commanders that act like they did in Warmaster, so essentially you use them to order formations. Once a commander fails to activate a formation, they can no longer do so this turn. Could be incorporated as mini-supreme commanders, giving a plus one to nearby activations or something. Some formations would have them included inside (ie guard command stands) others as separate entities. But again, this would be more of a new game rewrite than a simple 2.0 tidying up of the rules.

How have people got on playing the newest 8th Ed Apocalypse using Epic armies? Could that be considered an almost 2.0 for starters, just needing some tweaks? Not sure how it deals with aerospace ops.

I’ve actually realised a few of the above I made manifest in my ACW epic conversion, I’ll post it up shortly.

Edit, ACW post here: https://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd ... =4&t=34251

_________________
6mm Modular Scenery in development: http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=26235


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 78 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  


Powered by phpBB ® Forum Software © phpBB Group
CoDFaction Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net