What do you mean siegemasters nothing - it took me 1000's (slight exaggeration) of games to come up with how to balance them - check the sig!
| Tactical Command http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/ |
|
| Rules Review Process 2008 http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=69&t=11360 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | Markconz [ Sat Dec 29, 2007 3:39 am ] |
| Post subject: | Rules Review Process 2008 |
In addition to this thread in which the 'how' of the decision process is discussed, I thought it might be useful to build a list of items for consideration so we may be more aware of them. Ie if you are not happy with an experimental rule, or think something needs adding, list it here. Links to the ERC Change Documents are provided at the start of the other thread just mentioned, or in brief note form on this summary sheet. Please add items, or add your own specific clarifications to the items already below, but don't discuss the specifics in this thread. The purpose is a to compile a concise list of issues that people think need dealing with, specifically regarding the the rules and the experimental rules, plus the Chaos lists (and possibly Tau?), with a primary aim being the aiding of playtest focus. I've already added some I've heard of so far. Core rules -Skimmers, should they be able to stay 'above' cover without taking DTT (and getting no cover benefits if they do so). -Flame Template, should it stay or become barrage? -Indefinite Overwatch - is this problematic? -Garrisons on Overwatch - is this problematic (alone or when combined with indefinite overwatch)? Terminology: -Relabel 'walker' as 'move through cover' (same as 40k, because some units clearly are not walkers yet have this ability, necessitating explanatory text). -Relabel 'Teleport' as 'Deep Strike' (same as 40k, as above because some units teleport but others do not). -Relabel 'Disposable' as 'Expendable'. Marines -ATSKNF rule changes, and clarifications? -Demolishers, and Vindicators (eg move through cover?). Steel Legion -Vultures -Demolishers Siegmasters -nothing? Orks -Oddboyz -Flakwagonz Feral Orks -nothing? Speed Freaks -Oddboyz -Flakwagonz Biel Tan Eldar -Firestorms, numbers in formations, stats, points. -Titans, points and leader. -Howling Banshees? -Aspect Troupe. Black Legion -Ferals -Decimators -Aircraft Lost and Damned -nothing bar demolishers? Tau ? |
|
| Author: | The_Real_Chris [ Mon Dec 31, 2007 7:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Rules Review Process 2008 |
What do you mean siegemasters nothing - it took me 1000's (slight exaggeration) of games to come up with how to balance them - check the sig!
|
|
| Author: | Markconz [ Mon Dec 31, 2007 11:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Rules Review Process 2008 |
@Chris... are they ok now then...? I haven't heard anyone complain about them, unlike some other lists. Is that because they are in fact now perfect, or perhaps just not exactly winning army popularity contests...  @ Hena - Well I certainly hope people are looking at them... I'd like to see what people actually dislike from them, or would want to add/change etc. In addition people have been asking that Chaos gets looked at this year, so hopefully people who have been asking that can add the specifics they would like to see addressed. Anything to add...? |
|
| Author: | Markconz [ Tue Jan 01, 2008 11:46 am ] |
| Post subject: | Rules Review Process 2008 |
Well Hojyn translated Neal's documents and posted them on the French site, but I don't think many comments were received...? Not sure how many copies of Neal's change documents have been downloaded, but over a hundred downloads of 2008 Handbook have occurred in the first fortnight, plus a dozen hard copies for my own group, and the Germans should have a translated version soon thanks to Morg. Hopefully all that will generate some feedback. |
|
| Author: | Markconz [ Tue Jan 01, 2008 12:07 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Rules Review Process 2008 |
I checked it out with google a while ago, though the translation AI is still not as perfect as it could be Also haven't there been a few questions even about those ones (except for 1.14 End Phase)? If so I hope people who made them post them here, or maybe those issues have been resolved by now. |
|
| Author: | nealhunt [ Wed Jan 02, 2008 6:39 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Rules Review Process 2008 |
Just to pop in and touch base, I have been reading these threads and mulling them over. I have a lot of ideas but I am still uncertain on how to proceed. I'll try to get something in semi-concrete form soon. |
|
| Author: | Dave [ Fri Jan 11, 2008 3:38 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Rules Review Process 2008 |
(Rug @ Jan. 11 2008,08:59) QUOTE Have I missed some revisions somewhere? That depends if you've seen the change docs in Neal's sig or not. http://www.tacticalwargames.net/wiki....eryId=4 |
|
| Author: | ragnarok [ Fri Jan 11, 2008 9:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Rules Review Process 2008 |
I would like to say that I am not happy with the flamer rule that says WEs block the flames from continuing. If they hit something like a great Gargant then I can see the flames not getting any further, but an arm mounted inferno cannon on a warlord hitting a Baneblade wont be stopped. I?m not sure what can be done about this, but the rules don?t make sense. |
|
| Author: | Evil and Chaos [ Fri Jan 11, 2008 9:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Rules Review Process 2008 |
Frankly the flame template doesn't work in Epic A for a whole bunch of reasons. I think it should be removed from the rules, and removed from the Great Unclean One too, until a workable method of using it is found. |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|