Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 12 posts ] 

Proposed Alternate Assualt Rules

 Post subject: Proposed Alternate Assualt Rules
PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 10:15 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:06 am
Posts: 5
Location: Hong Kong
?Oh no! we?ve lost a single fire team in an assault, everyone throw down your rifle and run away!?

Rational:  
Assaults should only result in decisive results (i.e. one or more formations breaking) when the casualties and disorder generated by the assault are sufficient to actually break the formation.  Having your formation rout because it lost a single roll off is just silly.

Proposed rule change:

1.12.7 Work Out Result
After both players have removed casualties, the outcome of the combat must be decided. First, if one side completely wiped the other side out, then it is the winner. If this isn't the case then each player rolls 2D6, and adds any modifiers that apply from the chart below to the single D6 that rolled highest. Note that you don't add your dice rolls together, but use the single dice with the highest score. Whoever has the higher score after any modifiers have been added wins the assault. In the case of a tied dice roll fight a second assault using any surviving units, starting with step 4 (i.e. roll dice, allocate hits, make saves and resolve the combat all over again with any survivors). Units from both sides are allowed to make a counter charge move before the second round is fought, with the attacker moving his counter charging units first (see 1.12.4). If a second round is fought then any casualties from the first round carry over when working out the result of the combat.


changes to:

After both players have removed casualties, each side then allocates blast markers for any casualties received during the assault (including casualties from supporting fire).  In addition, each side involved in the assault rolls 2d6 and adds any modifiers that apply from the chart below to the single D6 that rolled highest. Note that you don't add your dice rolls together, but use the single dice with the highest score.  The side with the highest total has won this round of the close combat and causes additional blast markers to each opposing formation equal to the difference between the sides totals.  In the case of a tied roll, neither side receives additional blast markers.  This represents units becoming more disorganized during the confusion on the assault.

Each formation now applies the blast markers it received during this round of fighting.  If these blast markers are sufficient to break the formation, any blast markers ?in excess? cause unsaved hits, as normal.  Any formations broken must make a withdrawal move.  If formations on both sides of the assault are broken, all formations on the side that lost this round of combat must complete their withdrawal moves first.

If only one side of the assault has unbroken formations, it is the winner of the assault.  Any unbroken formations can make a consolidation move.

If both sides of the assault still have unbroken formations, each side makes a counter-charge move, starting with the side that won the round of close combat and then another round of close combat is fought.

Only 3 rounds of close combat may be fought during a single assault.  If three rounds of close combat have been fought without a clear winner, then each side involved in the assault must make a consolidation move, starting with the loser of the last round of combat.  If, at the end of these consolidation moves, a unit is still within an enemy units zone of control, the unit of the side that lost the most recent round of close combat is ?pushed? to the edge of the enemies zone of control.


-Whew-
That turned out much longer than I had expected, even though the idea was pretty simple.

I added the limitation of three rounds of close combat to prevent movement during assaults from getting completely out of hand.  You can always try to assault with the same formations again next turn.

This basically is to prevent large formations that otherwise had perfect morale (i.e. no blast markers) from routing because then had one fire team killed in an assault.  Now, large formations can fight a long time in the assault because they can soak up the blast markers and casualties involved.  If you want to instantly rout the other side in the assault, spend some time shooting them and piling the blast markers on before rushing in.  Or just assault them with enough forces to kill a lot of them.

Assaults are still more decisive than shooting, since there are 3 chances to fight during an assault, and the resolution of each round of close combat produces more blast markers, but they are no longer ?magically? decisive.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Proposed Alternate Assualt Rules
PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 10:52 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2007 1:32 pm
Posts: 516
Interesting idea, but need to chew it a bit...

At least this would mean that large formation ('uge warband for example) would be very very hard to rout. It would also make ATSKNF even more powerful I guess. Perhaps a good thing, but then SM armour formations would be much improved I guess.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Proposed Alternate Assualt Rules
PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 11:55 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:06 am
Posts: 5
Location: Hong Kong
I stuck in the bit about only 3 rounds of close combat in an attempt to limit free movement during the assault, rather than to limit the amount of fighting that happens.

This means that large formations are still limited by their size, in that then can only grind forward so many guys into a single assault.  

A huge ork mob of 30 + models in dispersed formation means that the guys in the back might not actually be able to make it into the fight.  The amount of force contraction during an assault a formation is allowed to do should be limited.  Of course, 3 rounds will probably see off most assaults.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Proposed Alternate Assualt Rules
PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 1:34 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 6:32 pm
Posts: 6414
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania USA
?Oh no! we?ve lost a single fire team in an assault, everyone throw down your rifle and run away!?


It should also be noted that "broken" does not equal "routed".  When a formation routs it is a 'screw this I'm outta here type of situation' and would be one of the many situations you would find in Epic when a formation is destroyed (right up there with everybody being dead of course).  Just like if a tank is destroyed it could mean it suffered engine problems, threw a tread, whatever.

Whereas a formation that is broken is undergoing more to the effect of an orderly withdraw.  They still maintain cohesion and attempt to rally (reorganize) themselves.  They may retreat saying, "We're getting spanked here! Retreat!" and withdraw, only to make a head count, realize the situation isn't as bad as they thought, and then make another go of it.

It isn't as unrealistic as you paint it.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Proposed Alternate Assualt Rules
PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 2:55 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
What Mosc said.  Routed = destroyed, i.e. "hackdown" hits.  Broken just means temporarily disorganized.

===

As far as the rule, it will cause massive differences in the results of assaults.  Prepping a target to place BMs would border on useless, as the kills in assault would not only effectively remove the modifier for no-BMs, the in-assault kills would also quickly overwhelm anything but large numbers of BMs.

Large formations would be virtually impossible to engage successfully as it would require the opponent to generate 2-3x the number of kills.

It might work as a system overall, but it would completely break the current EA system.

_________________
Neal


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Proposed Alternate Assualt Rules
PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 3:36 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 8:45 pm
Posts: 11147
Location: Canton, CT, USA
I think the assault rules work fine as is.

_________________
"I don't believe in destiny or the guiding hand of fate." N. Peart


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Proposed Alternate Assualt Rules
PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 3:39 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 6:32 pm
Posts: 6414
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania USA
BTW when I first started playing Epic, the group I played with 'misread' the rule
You have more units than the opposing formation +1*

to be cumulative.  The result was that the Orks won every game that didn't involve a starting position 8 ft apart.  It was utterly ridiculous and it should come as no surprise the player that forced everyone else to play that way was the Ork player.  When I clarified the rule I was asked to leave the group by the Ork player. :)

Looking over your system, it would have a similar effect where the game would be dominated by armies that could generate the largest formations. Sorry, hombre.  I just don't see it working.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Proposed Alternate Assualt Rules
PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:54 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:06 am
Posts: 5
Location: Hong Kong
Here's a sample assault using the rules:

A huge ork mob, vs a marine tactical and marine dev detachment.  (scale: 1 hex = 2.5 cm)

The marine devs move in and shoot at the orks, killing two grots and a boy, and causing 2 BM.



The marines retain and engage with the tactical squad.
The orks counter charge, with those managing the make it into firefight range circled in yellow.



The orks kill 2 marines, the marines kill 3 grots.  The Devs fire in support and kill 4 boys.



On the roll off:
The marines have 4 kills, plus 1 for having no blast markers, and +1 for the other side having more blast markers
The orks have +2 for kills and +2 for outnumbering.
Advantage marines at +2.

Marines get a 4, orks get a 6, so neither side gets extra blast markers.

The marines could counter charge, but decide to stay still.  The orks counter charge.

The orks kill a marine and a rhino.  The marines kill 2 boys.  The devs provide supporting fire and kill 3 boys.



Roll off:
Marines have 5 kills, orks have more blast markers
Orks have 2 kills, still outnumber 2 to 1 (+2).
Advantage marines, +2

Marines get roll 6, orks get roll 4.

Orks get 4 more blast markers.

This is just enough to break the orks, iwth no hackdowns.  Had the orks held out for the 3rd turn of close combat, they might have actaully wiped the marines out, as they would be in base to base with several units.

Orks leave with 6 nobs, 8 boys, and 1 grot

Marines leave with 3 marines, 2 rhinos, and 4 blast markers.

The only real difference in the 1st test run with the new combat system is that the orks didn't suffer 4 hackdown hits.

Will have to try some more tests where the orks are in full base to base formation, since that will maximize the effect of their close combat ability.






Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Proposed Alternate Assualt Rules
PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 6:36 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 12:52 pm
Posts: 4262
You do realise that in your diagram two of the boys could have contacted the devs (counter charge is to the nearest formation).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Proposed Alternate Assualt Rules
PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 7:21 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
As an important side note...

The Devs could not have provided support fire to this assault.  Allocation of support fire requires that the targets be legal targets of both the supporting formation and the assaulting formation.
1.12.6 Supporting Fire
In addition to units that are fighting from the attacking
and defending formations, all units that are within 15cm
and have a line of fire to an enemy unit that is involved
in the assault
are allowed to attack with their firefight
value. This rule represents units from both sides that are
not directly involved in the assault lending supporting
fire to their friends. However, any hits scored may only be
applied to enemy units that are actually taking part in the
assault
. In addition, units from a formation that is broken
or that marched in its last action may not provide
supporting fire.


Formations "taking part" in the assault are the attacking and defending formations.  Units "actually taking part in the assault" are the units that roll to attack.  That means if the unit is not a viable target for the assaulting formation, it is not a viable target for supporting formations.  Since the Boyz killed by the Devs couldn't be assigned hits from the Tacs, they were not legal targets for allocation.

This is not exactly clear from the text of the rulebook.  However, Jervis clarified the intent a long time ago, and when he wrote the experimental rules he defined it more clearly, using the term "directly involved."  From the experimental rules doc:
Calling on support allows units from other formations to attack with their firefight value if they are within 15cm and have a line of fire to an enemy unit directly involved in the assault. In this case ?directly involved? means belonging to the attacking or defending formation(s) and in a position to attack.

_________________
Neal


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 12 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 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