Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 3
  [ 42 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

Problems with proposed fixes
Ginger
 Post subject: Problems with proposed fixes
PostPosted: Tue Sep 04, 2007 10:01 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5483
Location: London, UK
Apparently, some of the proposed rule amendments may be causing larger problems.

So, which proposed amendment do you really dislike, and why? ?

Some guidance:-
- Please give concrete examples where possible.
- Please specify whether the problem is "Game breaking", hard to accept, or a minor irritation?
- Please confine this thread to Rules Amendments only (not army lists)
- Please suggest a better alternative to the original problem if possible


Above all, please criticise the amendment, don't get personal ?(however tempting it might be :p )

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Topics raised so far:-
- Current Intermingling rule should be more restrictive
- Scout intermingling (10cms or revert to 5cms)
- AP column used in MW Barrage




_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Markconz
 Post subject: Problems with proposed fixes
PostPosted: Tue Sep 04, 2007 11:27 am 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: New Zealand
Well I have one :D - a fix in the core rules that hasn't been made but should be IMO.

The Intermingling exploit that allows breaking of formations on the other side of the battlefield to an engage action.

It comes up fairly regularly with new players (and even a few old ones!) discovering it and asking 'what the hell?'.  ??? Here's a recent example from earlier this year:
http://forum.specialist-games.com/topic ... C_ID=10780

I despise (no that's not too strong a word  :p)  the intermingling rules as written. It just runs contrary to all common sense when I look at all the historical games I've played (the rejection of the old 'Scout 10cm Intermingling' FAQ helps somewhat but the basic issue is still there). However, I haven't bothered pushing strongly for a change because Neal seems ok with it as is.


I guess I should at least get around to adding a note in the FAQ given the prevalence of questions about it though... including from Neal's post in the link above - some justification for the current state of affairs and a note about the option 'that intermingled formations must all be a valid target of the assault on their own' is not part of the official rules (though my own group has been using this, as have other people here and at SG apparently).

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Irondeath
 Post subject: Problems with proposed fixes
PostPosted: Tue Sep 04, 2007 12:27 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 12:36 pm
Posts: 653
It has been said before:

E:A allows pre-measuring. If you leave your formations intermingled, it?s your own fault. Period.

After I punished my regular opponents a couple of times for not paying attention, they take care not to put their formations within 5cm of each other. To top it off, we commonly play without pre-measuring (old-school style) and it still isn?t a problem anymore.

I see limiting intermingling as something a sloppy player would like to have in order to cover up his lack of attention ?:;):




_________________
Visit www.epic-battles.de the ultimate german epic site&forum!
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Mephiston
 Post subject: Problems with proposed fixes
PostPosted: Tue Sep 04, 2007 12:41 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 12:52 pm
Posts: 4262

(Markconz @ Sep. 04 2007,11:27)
QUOTE
I despise (no that's not too strong a word  :p)  the intermingling rules as written. It just runs contrary to all common sense when I look at all the historical games I've played (the rejection of the old 'Scout 10cm Intermingling' FAQ helps somewhat but the basic issue is still there). However, I haven't bothered pushing strongly for a change because Neal seems ok with it as is.

Markconz, on what discussion have you based the reversal of the scout FAQ? Its a change I certainly missed on my first pass through your document.

I tend to agree but wonder how many other players do?
Top
 Profile  
 
Markconz
 Post subject: Problems with proposed fixes
PostPosted: Tue Sep 04, 2007 12:50 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: New Zealand

(Irondeath @ Sep. 04 2007,11:27)
QUOTE
I see limiting intermingling as something a sloppy player would like to have in order to cover up his lack of attention  :;):

Not at all. It's something a player used to historical games and using good historical combined arms tactics (upon which Epic players draws upon in great amounts in its design philosophy - unlike 40k) has to adapt to for no good reason - that's the problem.

Here I have a lot of historical players who play WWII and moderns. They like Epic (but typically not 40k). Then there is this enormously strange intermingling rule, that allows a retiring skirmish screen to rout a heavy formation on the other side of the table.

Yes routing formations could have morale effects on other formations, but not like this. A unit 6cm away from enemies and friends in an engagement is always ok (apart from a single BM), but another 60cm away from any enemies is always routed. The practical effect is ludicrous. I have to just say to players - yeah I know it's dumb, don't know what they were thinking, and we ignore the rules as written and get on with it.  

In short players shouldn't have to adjust tactics specifically because of a rule deficiency. I know there is some attempt to justify this as representing something worthwhile, but I don't see it. Maybe I don't play enough 40k or tic tac toe to appreciate it's beautiful simplicity or something... :p

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Markconz
 Post subject: Problems with proposed fixes
PostPosted: Tue Sep 04, 2007 12:52 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: New Zealand

(Mephiston @ Sep. 04 2007,11:41)
QUOTE
Markconz, on what discussion have you based the reversal of the scout FAQ? Its a change I certainly missed on my first pass through your document.

I tend to agree but wonder how many other players do?

Neal said so. Also most players tend to agree from what I've seen.

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Mephiston
 Post subject: Problems with proposed fixes
PostPosted: Tue Sep 04, 2007 12:59 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 12:52 pm
Posts: 4262

(Markconz @ Sep. 04 2007,12:52)
QUOTE

(Mephiston @ Sep. 04 2007,11:41)
QUOTE
Markconz, on what discussion have you based the reversal of the scout FAQ? Its a change I certainly missed on my first pass through your document.

I tend to agree but wonder how many other players do?

Neal said so. Also most players tend to agree from what I've seen.

Works for me!

Should be back to play testing the rules from this evening. Could be black legion vs black legion so the MW barrage will get a good work out  :p
Top
 Profile  
 
yme-loc
 Post subject: Problems with proposed fixes
PostPosted: Tue Sep 04, 2007 1:18 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 4:58 pm
Posts: 599

(Markconz @ Sep. 04 2007,12:52)
QUOTE

(Mephiston @ Sep. 04 2007,11:41)
QUOTE
Markconz, on what discussion have you based the reversal of the scout FAQ? Its a change I certainly missed on my first pass through your document.

I tend to agree but wonder how many other players do?

Neal said so. Also most players tend to agree from what I've seen.

I certainly would be someone who doesn't agree with dropping the 10cm intermingling idea.

Also regarding intermingling causing a formation to break 60cm away - this can only happen if you have a very spread out (line type formation) which has one end within 5cm of another formation 60cm away - why do this? Surely its asking for a kicking intermingled or not.

Also regarding the proposed fix for intermingling with regards range of the chargers - most times I catch formations intermingled I am using air assaults which would have an effective unlimited charge range and so could intermingle everything anyway.

_________________
Epic UK - Improving and Enhancing Epic Gaming in the UK
[url]http://epic-uk.co.uk/wp[/url]
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Markconz
 Post subject: Problems with proposed fixes
PostPosted: Tue Sep 04, 2007 1:19 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: New Zealand

(Mephiston @ Sep. 04 2007,11:59)
QUOTE

(Markconz @ Sep. 04 2007,12:52)
QUOTE

Neal said so. Also most players tend to agree from what I've seen.

Works for me!

Should be back to play testing the rules from this evening. Could be black legion vs black legion so the MW barrage will get a good work out  :p

Lol, oh yeah did I forget to mention I dislike the MW as AP barrage rule?   :D

Given the overall goal, I just keep reminding myself that whatever I could produce alone would not be good as whatever emerges from a group effort, and that no one will get exactly what they want on every issue. Thus I'm prepared to live with (stupid!) intermingling and ERC MW barrage rules given the current situation... or delay my arguments until the revision for version 2 maybe...

Perhaps I should stop attacking my own handbook and leave that job to other people now ... :laugh:

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Markconz
 Post subject: Problems with proposed fixes
PostPosted: Tue Sep 04, 2007 1:28 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: New Zealand

(yme-loc @ Sep. 04 2007,12:18)
QUOTE
Also regarding the proposed fix for intermingling with regards range of the chargers - most times I catch formations intermingled I am using air assaults which would have an effective unlimited charge range and so could intermingle everything anyway.

Note the 'all' in the specification. The intention is that all intermingled formations must be within 15cm of the chargers at the end of a legal charge move by the charging formation.  The wording may not make that clear enough perhaps.

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
nealhunt
 Post subject: Problems with proposed fixes
PostPosted: Tue Sep 04, 2007 2:18 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA

(Markconz @ Sep. 04 2007,12:52)
QUOTE

(Mephiston @ Sep. 04 2007,11:41)
QUOTE
Markconz, on what discussion have you based the reversal of the scout FAQ? Its a change I certainly missed on my first pass through your document.

I tend to agree but wonder how many other players do?

Neal said so. Also most players tend to agree from what I've seen.

It's not just me.  Greg Lane and the Memphis crew also dropped this FAQ quite a while ago.  That's 2/3 of the ERC that stopped playing it after extensive playtesting.

_________________
Neal
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
rpr
 Post subject: Problems with proposed fixes
PostPosted: Tue Sep 04, 2007 2:41 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2007 1:32 pm
Posts: 516
I do not like the certain "strange cases" linked to intermingling.

Could the intermingling rule have this addition:
- after all charges and counter-charges are performed, any formations not within 15cm of enemy are dropped from the engagement (this only applies to first charge-counter-charge. If the engagement continues to second round, all the formations in engagement stay on it despite any casualties)

This means that the attacker can choose to include the enemy formation somewhere 60cm away from the intended target, linked by some scouts, but including it will only mean that this included formation will get a free counter-charge..
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Evil and Chaos
 Post subject: Problems with proposed fixes
PostPosted: Tue Sep 04, 2007 2:54 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
My group also ignores the scout intermingling ruling.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Mephiston
 Post subject: Problems with proposed fixes
PostPosted: Tue Sep 04, 2007 4:03 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 12:52 pm
Posts: 4262
So the only group left using the scout intermingling FAQ are tournament players as we have to use a common set of rules available to all players!
Top
 Profile  
 
BlackLegion
 Post subject: Problems with proposed fixes
PostPosted: Tue Sep 04, 2007 4:37 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 12:13 am
Posts: 8711
Location: Leipzig, Germany, Europe, Sol III, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Universe
I dislike the use of the AP column for MW Barrages. In our group we still use the comumn of what is actually under the template.




_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
  Print view Previous topic | Next topic 
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 3
  [ 42 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

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