Tactical Command :: View topic - Crabowl's Objections

(nealhunt @ Jan. 30 2008,15:17)

I really don't follow a lot of this.

1.1.3 - You are objecting to adding a clarification to address a regularly asked question? ?I don't understand this at all.

(nealhunt @ Jan. 30 2008,15:17)

2.1.2 - So far, all reports are that the Commander change is a non-issue. ?It appears to be so useless that I was thinking of just taking it out because it failed to improve Commander ability at all. ?What makes it "too good"? How could you abuse this?

(nealhunt @ Jan. 30 2008,15:17)

2.2.X [flame template] - I agree that this might be unnecessary (and personally, I favor cutting it to go with BP), but how is the Flame Template innately "too good"? ?The effectiveness of a weapon which happens to use the template is extremely dependent on the to-hit stats. ?This seems like saying "range 60cm is too good."

(nealhunt @ Jan. 30 2008,15:17)

4.2.4 Flak -1 to hit (9 fighta-bommers vs 2 hunters.. do I have to say more?) - Yes, you need to say more. ?What is your opinion on the trade out of "flak rush" versus the downgrade to ground flak ability? ?Do you prefer that ground formations go rushing around the board to intercept aircraft as they fly by? ?Hunters, due to the better to-hit numbers, are actually affected less by this than any other flak units in the game. ?Why do you feel they have been especially damaged?

(nealhunt @ Jan. 30 2008,15:17)

4.2 Aircraft Escorts (there should be no room for 'optional' rules in the rules duh..) - There are optional rules in the rulebook already, pre-measuring, for instance. ?Should those all be removed as well?

(nealhunt @ Jan. 30 2008,15:17)

6.14 Place Objective Markers (I'd rather see them aircrafts not being able to contest or capture on the turn they land) - Again, I'm a bit boggled. ?You favor a strong downgrade, but you would rather use the book rules than a partial downgrade?

(nealhunt @ Jan. 30 2008,15:17)

2.1.X Disposable (expendable sounds better) - The rule is okay, but you wouldn't want to use it because you don't like the name?

(nealhunt @ Jan. 30 2008,15:17)

2.1.X Support craft - Personally, I think this is a unique role and interesting set of abilities. ?More to the point, these are going to be in the game because of the Tau list, just like the Lance special ability is in the game because of the Eldar list. ?Jervis created the Support Craft ability. ?The Tau were the next in line after Chaos for official status and the list is (imho) the most polished of any of the non-variant lists. ?That's as close to a done deal as anything that's not yet official.

(nealhunt @ Jan. 30 2008,15:17)

I really don't follow a lot of this.

1.1.3 - You are objecting to adding a clarification to address a regularly asked question? I don't understand this at all.

(nealhunt @ Jan. 30 2008,15:17)

2.2.X [flame template] - I agree that this might be unnecessary (and personally, I favor cutting it to go with BP), but how is the Flame Template innately "too good"? The effectiveness of a weapon which happens to use the template is extremely dependent on the to-hit stats. This seems like saying "range 60cm is too good."

(nealhunt @ Jan. 30 2008,15:17)

4.2.4 Flak -1 to hit (9 fighta-bommers vs 2 hunters.. do I have to say more?) - Yes, you need to say more. What is your opinion on the trade out of "flak rush" versus the downgrade to ground flak ability? Do you prefer that ground formations go rushing around the board to intercept aircraft as they fly by? Hunters, due to the better to-hit numbers, are actually affected less by this than any other flak units in the game. Why do you feel they have been especially damaged?

(BlackLegion @ Jan. 30 2008,17:24)

@Jok3r: I thought a flak unit can only fire at an aircraftformation once per turn? So if it had fired on it on the approach move it can't shoot at them again during the disengage move.

(Crabowl @ Jan. 30 2008,16:51)

[quote="nealhunt,Jan. 30 2008,15:17"]
I'm against all the AP5+/30cm OR AT2+/75cm weapons this will bring. One weapon one range.

(Hena @ Jan. 30 2008,19:59)

1.1.3
This is a clarification on how to use those words when making a new list. Certainly it doesn't add anything new that was not possible before. Just making sure that the use is consistent across all lists.

(Hena @ Jan. 30 2008,19:59)

4.2.4
Yes please. 9 Fightas with +1 to hit in CAP or Intercept scores 3 times. ?2 Hunters will score once. And You want to make the Hunters even worse?

(Hena @ Jan. 30 2008,19:59)

And as far as T'bolts being crap, I can't follow. They are very, very good unit. I can't play without them anymore with Marines or IG.

(Hena @ Jan. 30 2008,19:59)

(You had marked living in Finland in SG boards, so perhaps we can battle it out few times in Ropecon if you live outside of Helsinki in autumn. Then I can show you just how crappy or good they are

(Hena @ Jan. 30 2008,19:59)

4.2
I think that the Intercept CAPing should be part of CAP rules as it doesn't cause problems.

CAP of CAP is another matter. Are there any optional rules outside the 5min warm-up thing, Neal? Well the birthday thingy, but...

(Crabowl @ Jan. 31 2008,08:42)

Optional rules are just bad. I don't want to spend x minutes before, after and during the game to figure out what rules are used especially if the other player happens to be some random 'emo' teen lashing out after a couple of bad games.

Author:	nealhunt [ Wed Jan 30, 2008 4:17 pm ]
Post subject:	Crabowl's Objections
Most of the changes are good but at least the following ones are not for me: 1.1.3 Unit Datasheets (there's no need for this) 2.1.2 Commander (way too good since some armies get free commanders in half of the formations) 2.2.X Flame Template (too good, why not get apocalypse templates as well..) 4.2.4 Flak -1 to hit (9 fighta-bommers vs 2 hunters.. do I have to say more?) 4.2 Aircraft Escorts (there should be no room for 'optional' rules in the rules duh..) 6.14 Place Objective Markers (I'd rather see them aircrafts not being able to contest or capture on the turn they land) 2.1.X Disposable (expendable sounds better) 2.1.X Support craft (there's skimmer and there's aircraft, there's no need for skimmer craft) I really don't follow a lot of this. 1.1.3 - You are objecting to adding a clarification to address a regularly asked question? I don't understand this at all. 2.1.2 - So far, all reports are that the Commander change is a non-issue. It appears to be so useless that I was thinking of just taking it out because it failed to improve Commander ability at all. What makes it "too good"? How could you abuse this? 2.2.X [flame template] - I agree that this might be unnecessary (and personally, I favor cutting it to go with BP), but how is the Flame Template innately "too good"? The effectiveness of a weapon which happens to use the template is extremely dependent on the to-hit stats. This seems like saying "range 60cm is too good." 4.2.4 Flak -1 to hit (9 fighta-bommers vs 2 hunters.. do I have to say more?) - Yes, you need to say more. What is your opinion on the trade out of "flak rush" versus the downgrade to ground flak ability? Do you prefer that ground formations go rushing around the board to intercept aircraft as they fly by? Hunters, due to the better to-hit numbers, are actually affected less by this than any other flak units in the game. Why do you feel they have been especially damaged? 4.2 Aircraft Escorts (there should be no room for 'optional' rules in the rules duh..) - There are optional rules in the rulebook already, pre-measuring, for instance. Should those all be removed as well? 6.14 Place Objective Markers (I'd rather see them aircrafts not being able to contest or capture on the turn they land) - Again, I'm a bit boggled. You favor a strong downgrade, but you would rather use the book rules than a partial downgrade? 2.1.X Disposable (expendable sounds better) - The rule is okay, but you wouldn't want to use it because you don't like the name? 2.1.X Support craft - Personally, I think this is a unique role and interesting set of abilities. More to the point, these are going to be in the game because of the Tau list, just like the Lance special ability is in the game because of the Eldar list. Jervis created the Support Craft ability. The Tau were the next in line after Chaos for official status and the list is (imho) the most polished of any of the non-variant lists. That's as close to a done deal as anything that's not yet official.

Author:	Crabowl [ Wed Jan 30, 2008 5:51 pm ]
Post subject:	Crabowl's Objections
(nealhunt @ Jan. 30 2008,15:17) QUOTE I really don't follow a lot of this. 1.1.3 - You are objecting to adding a clarification to address a regularly asked question? ?I don't understand this at all. I'm against all the AP5+/30cm OR AT2+/75cm weapons this will bring. One weapon one range. (nealhunt @ Jan. 30 2008,15:17) QUOTE 2.1.2 - So far, all reports are that the Commander change is a non-issue. ?It appears to be so useless that I was thinking of just taking it out because it failed to improve Commander ability at all. ?What makes it "too good"? How could you abuse this? For example Black Legion marines might be quite nasty to assault when they can call in their friends to the fight - every friggin unit gets a 'free' lord that happens to be a commander. I'm against it because I don't know if it's an issue or not but it can be if someone finds a way to use it properly. (nealhunt @ Jan. 30 2008,15:17) QUOTE 2.2.X [flame template] - I agree that this might be unnecessary (and personally, I favor cutting it to go with BP), but how is the Flame Template innately "too good"? ?The effectiveness of a weapon which happens to use the template is extremely dependent on the to-hit stats. ?This seems like saying "range 60cm is too good." You can cover something like 1.5x units under that thing compared to normal blast marker and weapon like that would be almost always on a warhound or something similar that is both fast and can take few hits. Whatever weapon using that is not going to have AP6+ or AT6+ on its stat line because that's not 'fluffy'. (nealhunt @ Jan. 30 2008,15:17) QUOTE 4.2.4 Flak -1 to hit (9 fighta-bommers vs 2 hunters.. do I have to say more?) - Yes, you need to say more. ?What is your opinion on the trade out of "flak rush" versus the downgrade to ground flak ability? ?Do you prefer that ground formations go rushing around the board to intercept aircraft as they fly by? ?Hunters, due to the better to-hit numbers, are actually affected less by this than any other flak units in the game. ?Why do you feel they have been especially damaged? Hunter is the crappiest AA unit in the game but it's still something marines have to take because thunderbolts are horribly weak if your enemy even remotely knows how to play. Besides if a player wants to use a ~350 point formation to get a shot or two at some aircraft then let him. If a player can do it while getting max efficiency out of the regular troops then kudos to him. I suppose you haven't ever used your aircraft units to lure AA units to the side of the army instead of going forward? I don't understad why it's so strange that ground based units rush to shoot down planes, it's not impossible in modern warfare with radars showing there's planes coming 1000 miles away. (nealhunt @ Jan. 30 2008,15:17) QUOTE 4.2 Aircraft Escorts (there should be no room for 'optional' rules in the rules duh..) - There are optional rules in the rulebook already, pre-measuring, for instance. ?Should those all be removed as well? From the rules section yes. Move them to the 'hug bear' section at the end of the book if you can't decide if it's a rule or not. (nealhunt @ Jan. 30 2008,15:17) QUOTE 6.14 Place Objective Markers (I'd rather see them aircrafts not being able to contest or capture on the turn they land) - Again, I'm a bit boggled. ?You favor a strong downgrade, but you would rather use the book rules than a partial downgrade? The original post on the SG website was quite all or nothing about the entire ruleset. (nealhunt @ Jan. 30 2008,15:17) QUOTE 2.1.X Disposable (expendable sounds better) - The rule is okay, but you wouldn't want to use it because you don't like the name? Yes and see above. (nealhunt @ Jan. 30 2008,15:17) QUOTE 2.1.X Support craft - Personally, I think this is a unique role and interesting set of abilities. ?More to the point, these are going to be in the game because of the Tau list, just like the Lance special ability is in the game because of the Eldar list. ?Jervis created the Support Craft ability. ?The Tau were the next in line after Chaos for official status and the list is (imho) the most polished of any of the non-variant lists. ?That's as close to a done deal as anything that's not yet official. Why do you have to put every single special rule in the rulebook? Soon it'll be 17 pages and hundreds of special rules and most of them apply to one or maybe two units or formations. It's not that hard to explain the special rules that apply to an army in the army list itself and it would be much easier to read the lists when you don't have to check through the rulebook what some special rule means.

Author:	Moscovian [ Wed Jan 30, 2008 6:16 pm ]
Post subject:	Crabowl's Objections
Support craft - the idea was not only for the Tau but to cover other experimental lists that are in development. Having this as an available special rule means it is one less rule for the experimental list to carry. Support craft exist on two separate lists and has been proposed for other units as well. Your example of 17 pages is absurd. Besides there are six pages of special rules already in the orginal core rules - adding another 10 special rules would MAYBE take up another 2-3 pages which is totally reasonable if you want to see the game of Epic expanding.

Author:	J0k3r [ Wed Jan 30, 2008 6:20 pm ]
Post subject:	Crabowl's Objections
Hey, got a few thoughts here (being productive at work today!) (nealhunt @ Jan. 30 2008,15:17) QUOTE I really don't follow a lot of this. 1.1.3 - You are objecting to adding a clarification to address a regularly asked question? I don't understand this at all. I'm against all the AP5+/30cm OR AT2+/75cm weapons this will bring. One weapon one range. huh? AFAIK The only weapons that operate that way are ones that have a small arms and ranged fire ability, which is understandable. Why will clarifying and/or lead to single weapons with two different ranges? Plus theres nothing stopping people doing that now anyway. (nealhunt @ Jan. 30 2008,15:17) QUOTE 2.2.X [flame template] - I agree that this might be unnecessary (and personally, I favor cutting it to go with BP), but how is the Flame Template innately "too good"? The effectiveness of a weapon which happens to use the template is extremely dependent on the to-hit stats. This seems like saying "range 60cm is too good." You can cover something like 1.5x units under that thing compared to normal blast marker and weapon like that would be almost always on a warhound or something similar that is both fast and can take few hits. Whatever weapon using that is not going to have AP6+ or AT6+ on its stat line because that's not 'fluffy'. in which case the unit designer had better balance it properly. E.g. By making it cost more. Going by your argument I could just as easily say- NO TK weapons. they will be far too good and are only going to be mounted on big things so you cant kill them. (nealhunt @ Jan. 30 2008,15:17) QUOTE 4.2.4 Flak -1 to hit (9 fighta-bommers vs 2 hunters.. do I have to say more?) - Yes, you need to say more. What is your opinion on the trade out of "flak rush" versus the downgrade to ground flak ability? Do you prefer that ground formations go rushing around the board to intercept aircraft as they fly by? Hunters, due to the better to-hit numbers, are actually affected less by this than any other flak units in the game. Why do you feel they have been especially damaged? Hunter is the crappiest AA unit in the game but it's still something marines have to take because thunderbolts are horribly weak if your enemy even remotely knows how to play. Besides if a player wants to use a ~350 point formation to get a shot or two at some aircraft then let him. If a player can do it while getting max efficiency out of the regular troops then kudos to him. I suppose you haven't ever used your aircraft units to lure AA units to the side of the army instead of going forward? I don't understad why it's so strange that ground based units rush to shoot down planes, it's not impossible in modern warfare with radars showing there's planes coming 1000 miles away. First off id say the crapness of the hunter is something that needs to be countered in the Marine list review.

Author:	BlackLegion [ Wed Jan 30, 2008 6:24 pm ]
Post subject:	Crabowl's Objections
@Jok3r: I thought a flak unit can only fire at an aircraftformation once per turn? So if it had fired on it on the approach move it can't shoot at them again during the disengage move.

Tactical Command http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/

Crabowl's Objections http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=69&t=11600	Page 1 of 1

Author:	ragnarok [ Wed Jan 30, 2008 6:26 pm ]
Post subject:	Crabowl's Objections
I like having all the special rules in one place, rather than in each army book. As well as the above mentioned making it easier for other armies to impilment. It makes my life easier as my opponent will know my special rules as well as me. It is always nice when my opponent tells me that I have forgotten something important (such as ATSKNF).

Author:	J0k3r [ Wed Jan 30, 2008 6:35 pm ]
Post subject:	Crabowl's Objections
(BlackLegion @ Jan. 30 2008,17:24) QUOTE @Jok3r: I thought a flak unit can only fire at an aircraftformation once per turn? So if it had fired on it on the approach move it can't shoot at them again during the disengage move. Oops, My bad. yeas, you are right

Author:	nealhunt [ Wed Jan 30, 2008 8:03 pm ]
Post subject:	Crabowl's Objections
(Crabowl @ Jan. 30 2008,16:51) QUOTE [quote="nealhunt,Jan. 30 2008,15:17"] I'm against all the AP5+/30cm OR AT2+/75cm weapons this will bring. One weapon one range. This is a slippery slope argument, but in any case, it is possible now. The edit doesn't introduce anything new or change anything currently present. Besides if a player wants to use a ~350 point formation to get a shot or two at some aircraft then let him. If a player can do it while getting max efficiency out of the regular troops then kudos to him. I suppose you haven't ever used your aircraft units to lure AA units to the side of the army instead of going forward? I haven't tried to use aircraft to bait because with the guys I play with it's not going to work. In fact, it normally goes the other way - the opponent leaves a formation right near the edge of the AA umbrella, hoping to bait the aircraft so they can flak rush. That's the natural way the battle progresses anyway. Why do you have to put every single special rule in the rulebook? This is pretty hyperbolic. The change docs don't even remotely attempt to do this. They include 4 (Disposable Lance, Free Planetfall, Support Craft) out of a dozen or more special rules. Only the rules with potential wide application should be migrated to the core rules. Support craft are in the Tau list but the concept of a large, floating weapons platform appears across lots of the 40K-verse background. A lot of units have been discussed as possible Support Craft candidates. It's being tested for spore mines in the Tyranid list. The Dark Eldar list (in Fanatic, and since expanded) uses several Support Craft. It might make sense for some of the Necron WEs (Aeonic Orb) or it could be used for future chaos stuff (especially Tzeentchian floaty stuff). Based on units either already in the game or under testing, including Support Craft in the general rules makes more sense than Lance or Free Planetfall.

Author:	Evil and Chaos [ Wed Jan 30, 2008 9:03 pm ]
Post subject:	Crabowl's Objections
My thoughts: 2.2.X Flame Template (too good, why not get apocalypse templates as well..) I'm pretty certain that I've tested the flame template more etensively than anyone else on this forum; I can say without reservation that: - The flame template is pretty lame in Epic, despite the size of the template, due to the very short range. - Multiple templates firing from a single formation are pretty much useless. Frankly, I don't think the flame template should be used on units under anything except the most exceptional of circumstances. 4.2.4 Flak -1 to hit (9 fighta-bommers vs 2 hunters.. do I have to say more?) The problem with Hunters is not their stats. Like the other Marine tanks, they're simply overpriced.

Author:	Crabowl [ Thu Jan 31, 2008 10:42 am ]
Post subject:	Crabowl's Objections
(Hena @ Jan. 30 2008,19:59) QUOTE 1.1.3 This is a clarification on how to use those words when making a new list. Certainly it doesn't add anything new that was not possible before. Just making sure that the use is consistent across all lists. Bah, I'm not sure what I was reading/thinking at the time. This clarification is not an issue, I just hate all the strange different range OR weapons, maybe it was the chaos flyer thread or something.. (Hena @ Jan. 30 2008,19:59) QUOTE 4.2.4 Yes please. 9 Fightas with +1 to hit in CAP or Intercept scores 3 times. ?2 Hunters will score once. And You want to make the Hunters even worse? I was actually hoping there wouldn't be a -1 to hit penalty for moving them hunters. With that those hunters would hit all 0.67 times and it would take quite a long game to even dent the fighta-bommer squadron. I suppose it's useless to say that 9 fighta-bommers may be too many birds in a single formation.. (Hena @ Jan. 30 2008,19:59) QUOTE And as far as T'bolts being crap, I can't follow. They are very, very good unit. I can't play without them anymore with Marines or IG. They are good for eating activations and finishing off broken units that have wandered too far from the AA umbrellas. They don't work too well in CAP'ing if you are playing against someone who knows how to play (ie someone who moves his AA near one of my formations prior to bombing it to pieces by his aircraft). (Hena @ Jan. 30 2008,19:59) QUOTE (You had marked living in Finland in SG boards, so perhaps we can battle it out few times in Ropecon if you live outside of Helsinki in autumn. Then I can show you just how crappy or good they are .) I might be around there then.. (Hena @ Jan. 30 2008,19:59) QUOTE 4.2 I think that the Intercept CAPing should be part of CAP rules as it doesn't cause problems. CAP of CAP is another matter. Are there any optional rules outside the 5min warm-up thing, Neal? Well the birthday thingy, but... Optional rules are just bad. I don't want to spend x minutes before, after and during the game to figure out what rules are used especially if the other player happens to be some random 'emo' teen lashing out after a couple of bad games.

Author:	Markconz [ Thu Jan 31, 2008 11:09 am ]
Post subject:	Crabowl's Objections
(Crabowl @ Jan. 31 2008,08:42) QUOTE Optional rules are just bad. I don't want to spend x minutes before, after and during the game to figure out what rules are used especially if the other player happens to be some random 'emo' teen lashing out after a couple of bad games. It's a design concept box stating why the idea is NOT in the main rules. The reason being, that people kept asking why it was not, or kept asking where in the rules it was because they couldn't find it. It's primary purpose is to clarify why the main rules are as they are. You will see similar design concept boxes throughout the rest of the rules, and some do actually include "optional rules" that you have to work out before the game (with the aircraft escorts you don't have to do this by the way). Things you have to work out like... -How you agree on what terrain is -How you measure range from one part of a figure to another -If you are allowed to premeasure or not. -Speed Dice rolling. I think stripping out such design concept boxes would just confuse people. At least with the aircraft escorts there is no need to discuss it with the opponent, as the what rule should be used is clearly specified. I do agree that the flame template is probably not necessary.

Author:	zombocom [ Thu Jan 31, 2008 11:12 am ]
Post subject:	Crabowl's Objections
On the flame template issue, currently either the main rules or the chaos rules need updating, because there is only one official unit that uses it, yet neither it nor the main rules specify how to use it. My personal preference would be to remove it in favour of a short range BP weapon.

Page 1 of 1	All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/