Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 

Epic (A) Oddities I would change

 Post subject: Epic (A) Oddities I would change
PostPosted: Tue Oct 23, 2007 10:22 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2007 1:32 pm
Posts: 516
There is some "Epic oddities" I would love to change..

1. Skimmer pop-up. I would rule that the "shadow" created by a terrain between popping up skimmer and target is equal to range to end of the terrain, i.e. if the skimmer is 20cm away from a terrain feature 10cm wide, the non-seen area is 30cm, not 20cm (like the current rules are). This is especially clear in situations like 5cm to terrain, 50cm of woods and then enemy within 10cm of the woods - in current rules, the skimmer would be able to see the enemy which is just silly (it would require skimmer to rise to 4x height of the terrain)

2. Chains of objective control. Those long lines of formations are just silly. I might change that a single formation can only control single objective. If it is close to two, it controls the one it is closer to (if it is standing on the top of two, then enemy chooses so do not leave formations like that :p )

3. Intermengling and a very long unit chain. I would rule that the attacker can choose to intermengle as many formations as earlier, but if any of those formations is not withihn 15cm of the attacker after all charges and counter-charges, they are dropped from the engagement. Thus the attacker would have no point to include a formation on the other half of the game board if the attacker is sure that it would never reach the engagement - including it would only give it a free counter-charge.

4. rout move. I might rule that the falling back unit is not allowed to move closer to enemy (in ranges less than 30cm). The exception to this is the initial rout move from engagement, on which the units are allowed to temporarily move closer to enemy but the main move must be away from the original direction of the attack (the direction from which the charging formation started its move). Thus, if a formation is attacked from west, it must move away to direction between north-east-south, instead of making a rout move through the enemy into west. As soon as unit is at least 15cm away from the enemy, it can change its course.

(this is a bit tricky rule but I'm a bit bored of those oddities of using the rout move to charge through the enemy to cover the objective behind them)

Of these, 1 and 3 are quite trivial and have been in use. Number 2 is a bit more radical but not that big issue, while 4 would change the way the game is played. In my opinion, all of them would reduce some silly situations seen on the battlefield of the E:A.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Epic (A) Oddities I would change
PostPosted: Tue Oct 23, 2007 11:13 am 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: New Zealand
Well number 3 has come up numerous times before and I'm actually 100 percent in favour of your proposal, but can't see it changing unless lots of other people are too.  I might add a 'yes the rule is meant to be played as it says but some groups have used this as a houserule' type clarification in the FAQ to shut people up about it until next review (even though I agree with them!).

Number 1 not sure, would have to look at the history of the house rule again more closely. I think I may have argued for that in the past but there were complications.

2 and 4 unneccessary IMO, and difficult to define well for 4.

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Epic (A) Oddities I would change
PostPosted: Tue Oct 23, 2007 11:32 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5483
Location: London, UK
Number 2 was specifically raised in the SG boards and rejected by Greg Lane, because the revisions to the skimmer rule had been some 2-3 years in the making and they were the only revision formally approved by the ERC. Personally, I prefer to use the "shadow" mechanic, being as easy to determine as measuring the relative gaps between the units to the terrain, but at present, I would treat this as a house rule.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Epic (A) Oddities I would change
PostPosted: Tue Oct 23, 2007 6:35 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2005 6:38 pm
Posts: 1673
Location: Chattanooga, TN, USA
Well, one of the guiding principles behind the game is to use as simple a mechanic as possible to represent real-world situations.

1. Skimmer pop-up. I would rule that the "shadow" created by a terrain between popping up skimmer and target is equal to range to end of the terrain, i.e. if the skimmer is 20cm away from a terrain feature 10cm wide, the non-seen area is 30cm, not 20cm (like the current rules are). This is especially clear in situations like 5cm to terrain, 50cm of woods and then enemy within 10cm of the woods - in current rules, the skimmer would be able to see the enemy which is just silly (it would require skimmer to rise to 4x height of the terrain)

The current "revised" pop-up rule is a compromise. Lots of people wanted to have a terrain shadow as you described, but the current rule involves less measuring (it often only requires an eyeball) and gives more to the skimmer than your suggestion. Why is that important? Well, because the SM and IG skimmers were given point costs to reflect their ability to pop-up and see anywhere on the table. This is restricted by the new rule, but not as much as yours would. In any case, what's wrong with a skimmer popping-up 4x the height of the terrain? Skimmers aren't hovercraft, they're anti-grav and/or VTOL vehicles - they can go up as high as they please.

2. Chains of objective control. Those long lines of formations are just silly. I might change that a single formation can only control single objective. If it is close to two, it controls the one it is closer to (if it is standing on the top of two, then enemy chooses so do not leave formations like that :p )
This seems like an opinion more than anything, and you're welcome to it. Strung out formations have enough going against them (try an assault on one end) that you don't need this rule. Also, if no enemy is around, why shouldn't one formation control two or three, or even 6 objectives at once? Besides, not all armies will have enough activations to be able to split up and cover things individually.

3. Intermengling and a very long unit chain. I would rule that the attacker can choose to intermengle as many formations as earlier, but if any of those formations is not withihn 15cm of the attacker after all charges and counter-charges, they are dropped from the engagement. Thus the attacker would have no point to include a formation on the other half of the game board if the attacker is sure that it would never reach the engagement - including it would only give it a free counter-charge.
I don't disagree with you here, but I do think that any problems that a player encounters due to intermingling only happen once, then the player just becomes more careful. In fact, in groups I've played with, we automatically position units to actively avoid intermingling.

4. rout move. I might rule that the falling back unit is not allowed to move closer to enemy (in ranges less than 30cm). The exception to this is the initial rout move from engagement, on which the units are allowed to temporarily move closer to enemy but the main move must be away from the original direction of the attack (the direction from which the charging formation started its move). Thus, if a formation is attacked from west, it must move away to direction between north-east-south, instead of making a rout move through the enemy into west. As soon as unit is at least 15cm away from the enemy, it can change its course.

(this is a bit tricky rule but I'm a bit bored of those oddities of using the rout move to charge through the enemy to cover the objective behind them)
I understand where you're coming from with this, but there are other rules that mitigate this problem. First, a broken unit can't claim/contest and objective on the turn that it rallies. Second, staying within 30 cm of an enemy formation (or moving to a position that the opponent could easily send another formation to) makes it that much harder to rally. Anyway, whats to say that the best cover isn't around behind you, where there might be woods or ruins?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 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