Yes, but that takes two lines.
I'm not asking for special rule adjustments, just a note in 2.2 to explain what the notation means.
| Tactical Command http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/ |
|
| NetEA Rules Review '09 http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=69&t=15419 |
Page 1 of 10 |
| Author: | nealhunt [ Fri Apr 24, 2009 3:08 pm ] |
| Post subject: | NetEA Rules Review '09 |
As promised in the schedule thread, following are notes for the May review.  There really isn't much.  Feel free to add suggestions for other items.  Brief discussions are fine but if we get into a detailed back-and-forth on any of them, let's break them out in their own threads. === Items for the NetEA Rules Review. In some cases, nailing down precise and unambiguous wording has proven extremely difficult.  I think that rather than attempting to correct the verbiage in those cases, it might be more profitable to come up with guidance on the concept behind the rule and how to interpret it. == FAQ review:  If Lord Inquisitor is up for it, we need to do a full FAQ review.  There may be some challenges in that regard until we can get access to the old SG forum FAQ thread. == 1.9.6  Hit allocation guidance for special ability (Disrupt, Ignore Cover, Lance, etc.) weapons.  There is question about where in the allocation sequence special ability weapons should be, as it can make a difference regarding whether the shot hits a unit which is vulnerable to the weapon's special ability.  I have two points on this. For the overarching concept, the design notes discussing allocation state that the concept behind it is to allocate hits to the applicable units whenever possible, e.g. you can’t use LVs to soak up AP hits while the accompanying infantry are allocated no hits.  I think the idea here is that if a player gets a hit, it’s not fair to rob them of that hit and they should be allocated so the player gets the full benefits of the special ability.  Lance hits should be allowed to “target†|
|
| Author: | Dave [ Fri Apr 24, 2009 3:29 pm ] |
| Post subject: | NetEA Rules Review '09 |
The Expendable rule has references to Disposable in it, should those be "Expendable" instead? 2.1.X  Expendable Some units are seen by their allies as ablative or just plain disposable.  This may be because the units are specifically created to sacrifice themselves, because the units are simply not valued, or for a number of other reasons.  Expendable units do not generate Blast Markers when they are removed as casualties.  This includes special effects which create Blast Markers when the Disposable unit is targeted, i.e. when hits are allocated to the unit.  Unless otherwise noted, Disposable units DO count as casualties for the purposes of assault resolution (1.12.7).  Formations comprised entirely of Expendable units do not gain this benefit, as they do not consider themselves to be expendable. I think Ignore Cover hits need the same sort of attention Lance hits are being given as well. I say yes to the support craft and free planetfall rules. |
|
| Author: | zombocom [ Fri Apr 24, 2009 3:37 pm ] |
| Post subject: | NetEA Rules Review '09 |
Quote: (nealhunt @ 24 Apr. 2009, 15:08 ) 1.9.6  Hit allocation and Lance weapons guidance. If a suitable solution can be found for lance, the same solution should be applied for ignore cover, opening up the possibility of ignore cover firefight weapons. 2.1.X  Expendable Some units are seen by their allies as ablative or just plain disposable.  This may be because the units are specifically created to sacrifice themselves, because the units are simply not valued, or for a number of other reasons.  Expendable units do not generate Blast Markers when they are removed as casualties.  This includes special effects which create Blast Markers when the Disposable unit is targeted, i.e. when hits are allocated to the unit.  Unless otherwise noted, Disposable units DO count as casualties for the purposes of assault resolution (1.12.7).  Formations comprised entirely of Expendable units do not gain this benefit, as they do not consider themselves to be expendable. You've mixed up the name of the rule here. Sometimes you're referring to Expendible as the rule name, and sometime as Disposable. Likewise, the section on "effects which create Blast Markers" is unclear. Support Craft:  Needed as a general rule?  It's currently in Tau and Dark Eldar. It currently exists only in the Dark Eldar list as of Tau 5.x; Mantas are now Skimmers that always count as being popped-up. Free Planetfall:  Common enough to be needed?  Quite viable as a core special rule, since it also has application elsewhere, such as tunelling vehicles etc. EDIT: Great minds etc. |
|
| Author: | nealhunt [ Fri Apr 24, 2009 3:57 pm ] |
| Post subject: | NetEA Rules Review '09 |
Revised the Lance to refer to all special weapon abilities. Corrected the Expendable text. Support Craft:  The mechanics used aren't the issue, just whether it's useful as a "universal" rule. Added Tunneling and Heavy Infantry. |
|
| Author: | Dave [ Fri Apr 24, 2009 4:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | NetEA Rules Review '09 |
Quote: (nealhunt @ 24 Apr. 2009, 10:57 ) Support Craft:  The mechanics used aren't the issue, just whether it's useful as a "universal" rule. That's what my yes was towards. I say include it. Another thing I'd like to bring up this time around is notes to allow for things like: Weapon X   15cm   AP4+/AT6+  Macro-weapon(AP) Weapon Y   15cm   AP5+/AT3+  Lance(AT) Also, would you mind posting your aircraft rule mods? |
|
| Author: | Dwarf Supreme [ Fri Apr 24, 2009 4:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | NetEA Rules Review '09 |
Quote: (Dave @ 24 Apr. 2009, 11:16 ) Another thing I'd like to bring up this time around is notes to allow for things like: Weapon X   15cm   AP+/AT6+  Macro-weapon(AP) Weapon Y   15cm   AP5+/AT3+  Lance(AT) Me too. |
|
| Author: | Evil and Chaos [ Fri Apr 24, 2009 4:27 pm ] |
| Post subject: | NetEA Rules Review '09 |
I'm not sure that needs a rules ajustment, when you can already do that with careful use of AND or OR. |
|
| Author: | Dave [ Fri Apr 24, 2009 4:35 pm ] |
| Post subject: | NetEA Rules Review '09 |
Yes, but that takes two lines. I'm not asking for special rule adjustments, just a note in 2.2 to explain what the notation means. |
|
| Author: | Chroma [ Fri Apr 24, 2009 4:51 pm ] |
| Post subject: | NetEA Rules Review '09 |
Quote: (Dave @ 24 Apr. 2009, 16:16 ) Weapon X   15cm   AP4+/AT6+  Macro-weapon(AP) Weapon Y   15cm   AP5+/AT3+  Lance(AT) I'd rather have this: Weapon X 15cm MWAP4+/AT6+ Or it could be: Weapon X 15cm APMW4+/AT6+ |
|
| Author: | zombocom [ Fri Apr 24, 2009 5:04 pm ] |
| Post subject: | NetEA Rules Review '09 |
I'm not at all keen on AP/AT specific Macro Weapons. I can't see what it adds to the game other than fiddliness. |
|
| Author: | Dave [ Fri Apr 24, 2009 5:07 pm ] |
| Post subject: | NetEA Rules Review '09 |
It adds the ability for a MW to be applied to only AP or AT, as opposed to both. Or for a MW to have different AP and AT scores. I'm not saying we have to ditch MW in the firepower column, nor rewrite any of the lists that we currently. It just allows additionally functionality and customization going forward. |
|
| Author: | Ginger [ Fri Apr 24, 2009 5:10 pm ] |
| Post subject: | NetEA Rules Review '09 |
'Free Planetfall' I belive it needs to be worded so that the act of planetfalling is made a separate activation from actually doing anything on the table - in other words, to follow the normal process but without the spaceship activation. Doing this would make the whole thing simpler and reduce its power to the same levels as normal planetfall. (As it is now, you effectively get an additional activation post free-planetfall before the opponent can react). turn sequence Needs to include the steps both at the start and end phases, including when you can force opponents to go first and the effect of passing,  Daemons, phasing in/out etc. Hit allocation Should also include allocation under templates Skimmer Really ought to be rewritten to say what was meant. However, popping-up needs clarification together with the effects of not popping-up. Eg can a Wave Serpent engage an enemy, disembarking troops in the process and then fly into the air to use its FF factors rather than CC; or if not 'popped-up', can the unit still fly over obstacles like streams etc. Expendable A single rule for common use gets my vote Support Craft IMHO is probably superflous, and the mechanics are not entirely clear. It certainly runs foul of transport rules which embark and disembark on the ground (and are effectively grounded for the rest of the turn). If it is felt to be necessary it should be a universal rule and ought to be reviewed to cover all effects. As an aside, it ought to include recommendations that units get reduced weapon ranges (similar to A/c) to compensate for the height etc Rule anomalies / clarifications Did we clear down sniper in assault? First-Strike in support formations. Which unit abilities must be applied to the entire formation to be used(eg disrupt), and which only apply to the unit / weapon (eg slowfiring). Adding characters and extra attacks MW classifications If you are considering separating these out, perhaps you could also reconsider the variable armour suggestion to allow some unit armour to be 4+/5+. |
|
| Author: | BlackLegion [ Sat Apr 25, 2009 1:56 am ] |
| Post subject: | NetEA Rules Review '09 |
Basically the same as in Gingers posting. 
|
|
| Author: | nealhunt [ Tue May 12, 2009 1:44 pm ] |
| Post subject: | NetEA Rules Review '09 |
So, to recap for the purposes of moving forward... FAQ review - Not much comment but previous support.  Shall I assume that means yes? Turn sequence doc - Yes. Hit allocation - Only indirect feedback.  What do you guys think of the concept? Skimmers - Not much comment.  Yes? Expendable - Yes. Support Craft - It seems yes but with some opposition. Aircraft escorts - Yes. Free Planetfall - Yes? Tunneling - No comments. Heavy Infantry - No comments. AP/AT Macroweapons - I'm not opposed, but I'm not convinced. I see the advantages, but I am hesitant to introduce such a substantial change. Not enough comment to judge a prevailing opinion from the board members. |
|
| Author: | nealhunt [ Tue May 12, 2009 1:56 pm ] |
| Post subject: | NetEA Rules Review '09 |
Quote: (Ginger @ 24 Apr. 2009, 17:10 ) 'Free Planetfall' I belive it needs to be worded so that the act of planetfalling is made a separate activation from actually doing anything on the table - in other words, to follow the normal process but without the spaceship activation. Doing this would make the whole thing simpler and reduce its power to the same levels as normal planetfall. (As it is now, you effectively get an additional activation post free-planetfall before the opponent can react). I'm not sure I follow this, Ginger.  Making the free planetfall and activation one event is more powerful than Teleport in some ways, as it allows less opportunity for the opponent to react.  I could also see how it is better than a normal planetfall in that it allows the player to retain and use two ground formations rather than spacecraft/ground combo. However, making the free planetfall and activation separate would be worse than normal planetfall because you'd have to spend an activation solely on the planetfall, without the benefits of a spacecraft action.  That's basically burning an entire activation to do nothing.  That would cause 2 problems - using that activation to stall early in the game and delaying critical activations later in the game. To give an example of a potential abuse, an OGBM list with 3 Rokks (one for each DTF objective) could start Turn 1 with "Planetfall, Rokk on OW, Planefall, Rokk on OW, Planetfall, Rokk on OW" and cycle through 6 enemy activations before being forced to move a Gargant. One potential change to the mechanic would be to make it a "beginning of turn" activity like Teleport, but with the preplotting and scatter restrictions of planetfall. |
|
| Page 1 of 10 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|