| Tactical Command http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/ |
|
| Rules evolution http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=69&t=23715 |
Page 1 of 3 |
| Author: | LordotMilk [ Sun Aug 12, 2012 12:35 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Rules evolution |
So is there anything on schedule/playtest here? I am thinking: - CAP CAP orders. - Commander rule. mainly, because these have been talked about for years. But perhaps something else? |
|
| Author: | GlynG [ Sun Aug 12, 2012 12:44 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Rules evolution |
There are no plans to change the rules any more, lists yes, rules no. |
|
| Author: | Steve54 [ Sun Aug 12, 2012 12:51 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Rules evolution |
I really hope not, particularily cap-a-cap as it drastically alters game balance. |
|
| Author: | Mephiston [ Sun Aug 12, 2012 4:39 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Rules evolution |
Personally i like the rules stable, house rule other things if you want them of course. |
|
| Author: | jimmyzimms [ Sun Aug 12, 2012 5:45 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Rules evolution |
Yeah same here. Adding a mini-sup of collected house or optional rules might be fun but the core rule mechanics should be locked, warts and all (I'm looking at you aerospace / cap rules). I bet if you repurpose this thread to that you'll find a better responsible. 
|
|
| Author: | madd0ct0r [ Mon Aug 13, 2012 8:25 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Rules evolution |
what's up with the commander rule? |
|
| Author: | Evil and Chaos [ Mon Aug 13, 2012 8:31 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Rules evolution |
madd0ct0r wrote: what's up with the commander rule? I think it's more that Space Marine Commanders aren't worth as much as Librarians or Chaplains, than that the Commander rule itself is flawed. That colours the perception of the rule. |
|
| Author: | Mephiston [ Mon Aug 13, 2012 9:29 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Rules evolution |
Re commander there was talk of allowing it in a defensive capacity when engaged. So you can call in support if the assaulter decides not to intermingle. |
|
| Author: | LordotMilk [ Mon Aug 13, 2012 10:08 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Rules evolution |
Mephiston wrote: Re commander there was talk of allowing it in a defensive capacity when engaged. So you can call in support if the assaulter decides not to intermingle. This would really be nice... I agree on CAP issue though. Let's keep things simple and not increase the playability of air transporters. |
|
| Author: | Irisado [ Mon Aug 13, 2012 11:10 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Rules evolution |
Mephiston wrote: Re commander there was talk of allowing it in a defensive capacity when engaged. So you can call in support if the assaulter decides not to intermingle. I think that was the ruling which was used in Markconz's handbook. I seem to remember playing against it, and it made Space Marines pretty tough to break through. I wasn't convinced it was particularly well balanced, but that's a debate for elsewhere. Specifically in relation to the question posed at the start of the thread, I would be very happy if the rules were left alone. It seems to me that enough work has been done on them without opening this can of worms again. |
|
| Author: | carlos [ Mon Aug 13, 2012 11:14 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Rules evolution |
I'd still like Commander to change to 15cm as right now it's very hard and rare to pull off. Also, I use nids a lot and that's an army that could really use this rule to do some very in-character mass assaults. Alas, both units w/ commander and rare and the 5cm range makes it hard to do. |
|
| Author: | madd0ct0r [ Mon Aug 13, 2012 12:02 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Rules evolution |
wouldn't that be better handled inside the army list? Same for the defensive commander - that would be a very characterful special rule for a list. Having a stable ruleset that's 99% sensible is a god send. Describing Epic to a friend I explained the Net EA project to him and, with wide open eyes, he said 'But you'd end up with a perfectly balanced game' - it was as though it was something he'd never thought possible. |
|
| Author: | dptdexys [ Mon Aug 13, 2012 5:13 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Rules evolution |
I'm also in the "leave the rules alone" camp. @ Carlos giving the Commander 15cm range for calling in other formations would negate any risk of trying to set up combined assaults, although it would allow commander to be used more and easier it then has no downsides to it. I can see that 'Nids with their lower strategy rating are going to have major problems trying to use commander as things stand so maybe it is something that could be tested for them as a special rule. |
|
| Author: | Ginger [ Tue Aug 14, 2012 3:47 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Rules evolution |
As others, leave well alone, not least because of the extensive debates they cause. On commander, I always use in with Eldar; it is one of the main ways of combining enough firepower together to take out titans etc. A prime example is to have a group of Guardians in Wave Serpents and two Jetbike formations. They move together for mutual support and have a 'long-range' assault of 50cm using ~24 dice. |
|
| Author: | zombocom [ Tue Aug 14, 2012 3:52 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Rules evolution |
*Waves magic wand* Space marine commanders now cost 25 points. Ta da! problem solved. |
|
| Page 1 of 3 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|