Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 187 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13  Next

NetEA Tournament Pack

 Post subject: Re: NetEA Tournament Pack
PostPosted: Mon Nov 08, 2021 6:20 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 11:25 pm
Posts: 9476
Location: Worcester, MA
I also updated the WE and AC consolidation/disengage Q&A's based off of Dan's recent thread: https://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd ... =4&t=34594

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: NetEA Tournament Pack
PostPosted: Tue Nov 09, 2021 1:37 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 4:24 pm
Posts: 398
Location: Galicia
Thanks for that, Dave.

Dave wrote:
Abetillo wrote:
Is it like that? From what you, Ginger, Kyrt and Nealhunt wrote it seems that the intention was to make it at the end only for AC AA.


Well Ginger thought he agreed with me, but said he hadn't played in awhile. And Kyrt said he never saw it played that way (ie didn't agree).

I went through Neal's post back then and just did so again, and I can't find any post that says AC on the board only get to use their AA attacks against enemy units that end in their arc. If you find something, send me a link. But otherwise, yes, the FAQ I just revised is correct. AC can use their AA against an enemy that was within range and arc at anypoint during its approach move.


I understand. So then I assume it was a misunderstanding on your part, then, save if you had some PM talk, because:

Ginger was recollecting about very old happenings of the development, not recent, so it doesn't matter how much has been not playing.
[...] I have a similar recollection to yours from way back.[...]
and
[...] IIRC Neal ruled that for these earlier a/c to fire on the latest arrivals, the enemy a/c had to end their move in arc and range of the ‘defensive’ a/c. Note there are still essentially two parts of the activation; the ‘defensive fire’ from all relevant units takes place before the attackers shoot. [...]

Kyrt was talking about something different there, related to what I was asking (AC AA vs land AA) and wrote:
[...]As far as I know it’s played here that all flying aircraft only fire defensively when the attacker ends their move in the right spot. Whereas landed aircraft use the flak rules so any point in the approach move counts. [...] Just said wasn't sure because it doesn't happen.

And about Nealhunt, from the 2012 FAQ you linked. https://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd ... 15#p446315
[...]For example, if Bomber Flight 1 ends in the AA arc of Bomber Flight 2[...]
and
[...]A: Yes to all the questions. If aircraft end their approach move within range and fire arc of AA weapons, the enemy get flak attacks regardless of the missions of any of the aircraft.,[...]
Also [...]A: No. Aircraft only fire AA at each other when movement ends within fire arc of AA weapons, NOT simply passing through as with ground flak.[...]

Which is why a change like this surprised me and had to ask, just in case something else happened. There is lots of ''end'' in those texts.

_________________
Sculpting Orks thread
Statistics of games for OGBM v.3 list


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: NetEA Tournament Pack
PostPosted: Tue Nov 09, 2021 2:19 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 11:25 pm
Posts: 9476
Location: Worcester, MA
I'm pretty sure that post from Neal is where I got the my original impression in the first place. That was driving me nuts, Abelitto, thanks for finding it. That quote from 4.2.4 had a little wiggle room in interpretation, but I think the the one from 4.2.6 is pretty clear cut with regards to what we're talking about:

nealhunt wrote:
4.2.6
Q: Do disengaging aircraft get to fire AA at each other?
A: No. Aircraft only fire AA at each other when movement ends within fire arc of AA weapons, not simply passing through as with ground flak. Disengage moves end off the board, so no AA attacks can occur.


I'll swap it back at when I get a chance. The Disengage Moves section is not where I'd expect to find a ruling on this.

Update: Swapped it back.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: NetEA Tournament Pack
PostPosted: Thu Dec 09, 2021 3:19 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 4:24 pm
Posts: 398
Location: Galicia
Hello. I noticed some tiny mistypes on the Nyd list, but they don´t change a thing in the list, save for people that Ctrl+f through the document.

On Synapse swarms: On core units it says ''or two Tyrand Warriors'' It is missing the ''i'' in Tyranid. On the Extras it says Tyranids Warriors. There is an ''s'' for plural in both words when it only needs it in Warriors.

On Independent Swarms: ''Exocrine'' is lacking the ''s'' in both Core units and Extras. It is fine on the Synapse Swarm.

The reference sheet is ok.

This is not a misstype, but there is also the fact that there is no point in having costs for Medium formations for Biovore and Exocrine Swarms, as taking those units for the formation as extras ends up in the same cost, and there is no restricted extras that could benefit from taking the Medium formations, so it can confuse some.

_________________
Sculpting Orks thread
Statistics of games for OGBM v.3 list


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: NetEA Tournament Pack
PostPosted: Thu Dec 16, 2021 4:05 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2019 11:38 am
Posts: 39
I've noticed a discrepancy in the overwatch FAQ. The last point in FAQ says the formation could remain on overwatch if they were not in legal formation, however an earlier point in the FAQ says the opposite. Which is correct?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: NetEA Tournament Pack
PostPosted: Thu Dec 16, 2021 3:06 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Aug 26, 2019 11:44 pm
Posts: 23
Imacie wrote:
I've noticed a discrepancy in the overwatch FAQ. The last point in FAQ says the formation could remain on overwatch if they were not in legal formation, however an earlier point in the FAQ says the opposite. Which is correct?


I don't think it's a mistake. The way I read it is that you cannot go on overwatch, if you are not in a legal formation (as in activate the unit and give it the Overwatch order), but if the unit is already on overwatch, it can still shoot even if it's no longer in legal formation... The example here could be if the unit activates, go on overwatch, takes fire and looses units so it's no longer in a legal formation, and then it would still be able to fire on overwatch.
The last sentence in the FAQ says: "However, it could not choose to remain on overwatch as it would have to move back into a legal formation.", which is referring to the fact that a formation that is not in a legal formation, cannot choose to remain on overwatch from one turn to another. Example: Formation goes on overwatch in turn two, takes fire and suffers losses so it's no longer in a legal formation, and does not use it's overwatch fire in turn two... Then it cannont transfer it's overwatch order to turn 3, as it's no longer in a legal formation.

Hope it makes sense... and I am right ;D


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: NetEA Tournament Pack
PostPosted: Thu Dec 16, 2021 4:14 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 11:25 pm
Posts: 9476
Location: Worcester, MA
I'm out a bandwidth for this week, I will try to take a look next week on these.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: NetEA Tournament Pack
PostPosted: Thu Dec 23, 2021 6:18 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 11:43 pm
Posts: 2556
Location: UK
Imacie wrote:
I've noticed a discrepancy in the overwatch FAQ. The last point in FAQ says the formation could remain on overwatch if they were not in legal formation, however an earlier point in the FAQ says the opposite. Which is correct?

I can take this one Dave. The FAQs are correct and don't conflict as they're covering different situations. The overriding principle is: "coherency is checked only when taking a new action (test) and after each move"

The last FAQ item is re-iterating that a formation must be in coherency in order to choose an overwatch action (i.e. taking an action test). However, as per the last item in 1.10, formations that are already on overwatch (i.e. from a previous turn or garrisons) can instead remain on overwatch into the following turn, giving up their action(s) for that turn. This is the only case where a player can choose not to activate. Since they aren't taking an action, they do not need to or have the opportunity to move back into coherency.

The first FAQ however is clarifying that being out of coherency does not affect shooting. When a formation on overwatch shoots it is not taking a new action, hence does not need or have the opportunity to move back into coherency.

Note that unactivated formations that are (still) on overwatch therefore have four possible outcomes:
1. Activate them, and choose a different action
2. Activate them, choosing overwatch again
3. Overwatch fire, ending their action
4. Leave them on overwatch into the next turn
Coherency is relevant in the first two situations, since both involve taking a new action.

Option 2 seems at first glance redundant but is actually very common as a way of 'stalling' during turn 1, allowing you to 'burn' the activation of a static formation in order to save your other formations until after your opponent has moved. However it gives up flexibility for them to take another action themselves later in the turn and risks failing their action test, meaning they'd no longer be on overwatch.

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: NetEA Tournament Pack
PostPosted: Sat Jan 22, 2022 5:32 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2003 7:27 pm
Posts: 5588
Location: Bristol
I notice there’s a mistake in the Tournament Pack. The stats for the Death Korps of Krieg Medusa should be 60cm 1BP Disrupt Indirect and not 30cm MW4+.

It’s why the Medusa in the Krieg list costs 275 to pay for these stats while the Minervan vehicle mounted Medusa costs only 150. This isn’t some new change – the Medusa has had these stats since back to the original Siege book in 2010 and it’s had them all through to the current Krieg list.

It’ll have been a mistake in putting the tournament pack stats together and mistakenly assuming the t6wo Medusas to be the same. The weapon stats of the Krieg Medusa Platform weapon are different from the weapon on the vehicle mounted Medusa in the Minervan list though. The two have different weapon stats in 40k too - with the Platform version having a way longer indirect fire mode due to the way it’s mounted – which is why the Krieg one was statted like it is.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: NetEA Tournament Pack
PostPosted: Thu Apr 07, 2022 12:10 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2012 8:45 am
Posts: 284
It seems the Medusa rules hasn't been corrected yet


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: NetEA Tournament Pack
PostPosted: Mon Apr 11, 2022 9:52 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 11:25 pm
Posts: 9476
Location: Worcester, MA
Thanks Abetillo, I fixed the Tyranid Warrior typos. I left the Exocrine as is (assuming its plural is Exocrine) and I didn't touch the Biovores or Exocrine swarms (no one's brought it up in confusion, so if it ain't broke...).

Starkad10, Kyrt has it. The formation isn't activating in the last FAQ, where it is in the first.

Thanks GlynG, added the line.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: NetEA Tournament Pack
PostPosted: Tue Apr 26, 2022 12:52 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 4:24 pm
Posts: 398
Location: Galicia
With pleasure, Dave, and yes, now that you mention it, i cannot find Exocine with a ''s'' in any official Epic texts.

I came because someone told me about the Medusa in the TP having now two stats for the same weapon depending if on Minerva or Krieg.

It is not a mistake but intended that it is MW like in Minerva.
In Epic Siege in 2008 (and in EpicUK) it has a dual mode, yes, but in netEA it has changed a few times over the years: it changed to only BP Ind later in 2010 by E&C. https://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd ... 74&t=19762 and after that to only MW, as it has been on the TP as MW only since 2015. Here you have what remains of Rug's posts deleted by the account disappearance in 2016, thanks to Onyx's quote.

Onyx wrote:
Rug wrote:
In the interest of simplifying units, creating continuity across lists, preventing cross over with bombards, and giving them a niche I am minded to remove the 2nd fire option for the Medusa (the barrage one) and reduce their cost.

Thoughts?

Definitely a fan of this.


Later, on the revisions Matt-Shadowlord made to Krieg, he changed it from only MW to only BP Ind, as you can see here on Largo_W post https://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd ... 7&start=15 and here https://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd ... 0&start=30 at the end of Gwydion's post.

It is also as only BP Ind in all the four documents of the revisions, but it has always been since that quote in 2015 in the TP as MW, so i suppose that the change from the revision never got past the vote of the ERC, as there is no mention on those posts of what got approved and what not and Rug's posts are mostly lost.
https://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd ... 74&t=29390
https://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd ... 74&t=30347

If you do not have the previous versions of the TP i can provide if needed. I have close to a dozen different versions saved and only in 2013's TP it has a dual mode.

But, to begin with, even disregarding the previous examples, in netEA the same weapon cannot have two different stats depending on the list.

By the way, i also got notified that the CSM and Stigmatus lists have a new version from this month but i see no changes on Github list of changes. What did change?

_________________
Sculpting Orks thread
Statistics of games for OGBM v.3 list


Last edited by Abetillo on Tue Apr 26, 2022 10:13 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: NetEA Tournament Pack
PostPosted: Tue Apr 26, 2022 6:31 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 11:25 pm
Posts: 9476
Location: Worcester, MA
Abetillo wrote:
By the way, i also got notified that the CSM and Stigmatus lists have a new version from this month but i see no changes on Github list of changes. What did change?


Fickle Masters now explicitly says "lesser daemons".

https://github.com/dsusco/tp.net-armage ... 47f35783de

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: NetEA Tournament Pack
PostPosted: Thu Apr 28, 2022 10:38 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2003 7:27 pm
Posts: 5588
Location: Bristol
I liked the older Medusa stats and the platform gun did have a different longer range fire mode in 40k so there was some justification but I can see the argument for simplicity and conformity. Shrug not my call.

If you do go for the MW4+ version do remember to update the cost to be less though. The MW4+ ones are 150 points in the Epic UK Krieg list and rarely used while the tournament pack until recently had the MW4+ ones but with the 275 cost that was based on the original stats.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: NetEA Tournament Pack
PostPosted: Thu Sep 29, 2022 2:32 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2022 4:07 am
Posts: 3
Howdy guys.
Im a new player to epic and have been reading through the rules with some friends, played about 4 games so far. Ive played warhammer fantsay and 40k for a while but new to epic.

For a fresh set of eyes on the current rules I have jotted down some questions and comments that I think could improve the new comer experience.

1. Thunderhawk gunship has planet fall but do I have to use it, can I just play it as a normal aircraft?

2. Vampire Raider does a landing action is intercepted on the way, takes 1 damage. So now has 2 blast markers (coming under fire and taking damage). However, the moment it lands it has 2 blast markers, so immediately breaks. Since when landed within 15cm of an enemy, it is immobile it is then destroyed, does this also mean its cargo are killed?

3. Aircraft making flak attacks at other aircraft is unclear. Can my bomber fly around flak attack all enemy aircraft then make its ground attack? Can a fighter on intercept action perform the attack and also flak the same target? Do all the aircraft who have already activated count as flak that I need to avoid?

4. Blast markers and war engines. Intuitively I expected that to supress or break a war engine I would only need blast markers equal to the remaining hit points not the starting damage capacity. Since that is how it works for everything else.

5. It also makes sense to me that war engines should only get FF or CC attacks equal to their remaining hit points again not starting damage capacity.

6. For war machines. It’s weird that I have to also allocate hits up to the starting damage capacity even if there is only one hit point left. (eg. Unit of 3 baneblades. Closest baneblade is down to its last hit point, but I have to put 3 hits onto it, before putting some elsewhere.)

7. When firing weapons must you fire all your weapons. This is particularly relevant for single shot and slow firing. EG. Can I shoot half my slow firing, such that I can shoot every turn, or can I shoot my normal weapons and hold off my single shot weapons for later.

8. Commander orders a unit who has already activated to engage is this allowed.

9. It wasn’t clear for a bit that FF and CC can hit vehicles, perhaps a brief FAQ would be needed here.

10. It also wasn’t clear that CC hits are treated like FF hits in that they are allocated like shooting. I intuitively thought CC attacks could only be allocated onto the models in base contact.

11. When skimmers pop up in an engagement to avoid units in base contact, surely units with jet packs should still be able to use their CC attack and not be forced to use FF.

12. Is there any rule preventing having your entire army off the table using alternative deployment rules, only to play on turn 3 for the objective. I expected something like (if you have no models on the table then you automatically lose. Models in reserve, awaiting teleport, tunneler, planetfall or in aircraft don’t count, un landed aircraft also don’t count)

13. Can all the training scenarios be moved to a separate section/document. When looking through the rules to find answers they just get in the way. The same is true for the forces data sheets. These are already their own section, and when searching the document for a rule like say macro weapon you get heaps found and it makes it hard to find the right rule.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 187 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 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