Yup. If in doubt, read the rules!
I see no real need to change the rules regarding the counter charge. We should all know the details by now (having discussed it so many times over the years).
Ok Ginger, what else do you have for us...
| Tactical Command http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/ |
|
| Outstanding items for FAQ/Amendment http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=69&t=29889 |
Page 1 of 3 |
| Author: | Matt-Shadowlord [ Tue Jul 07, 2015 2:22 am ] |
| Post subject: | Outstanding items for FAQ/Amendment |
Hi I thought I'd make a thread for outstanding items that might need faqs or amendments. Feel free to add more. Here's a simple one; the wording is either incorrect or at least misleading: Q: Can units transported by Planetfall (for example Assault troops in a Thunderhawk) disembark as soon as the transporting unit lands? A: The intent of the Planetfall rule is that units landing via Planetfall get to land for free at the start of the turn, and then function as if they had been on the table since the start of the turn. This means that they can take their action later in the turn, as they won't have used it up yet – they are literally counted as having done nothing during the current turn. Change to: Q: Can units transported by Planetfall (for example Assault troops in a Thunderhawk) disembark as soon as the transporting unit lands? A: The intent of the Planetfall rule is that units landing via Planetfall get to land for free when the spacecraft carrying them activates, and then function as if they had been on the table since the start of the turn. This means that they can take their action later in the turn, as they won't have used it up yet – they are literally counted as having done nothing during the current turn. ---- Here's one that has been knocking around causing gamey situations for years, so I was considering putting up diagrams and photos demonstrating some issues but since we all know what the problems are I'll just keep it simple: 1.12.4 Counter charges A unit must use their counter charge move to move directly towards the closest enemy unit. Change to: A unit must use their counter charge move to move directly towards the closest enemy unit in the attacking formation. |
|
| Author: | Dave [ Tue Jul 07, 2015 2:47 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Outstanding items for FAQ/Amendment |
The first one is stated in the rules (third paragraph of 4.4). The second one would be a change, it's always been you counter-charge the closest enemy, regardless of what formation it belongss to. |
|
| Author: | Onyx [ Tue Jul 07, 2015 4:07 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Outstanding items for FAQ/Amendment |
Yup. If in doubt, read the rules! I see no real need to change the rules regarding the counter charge. We should all know the details by now (having discussed it so many times over the years). Ok Ginger, what else do you have for us...
|
|
| Author: | Matt-Shadowlord [ Tue Jul 07, 2015 7:02 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Outstanding items for FAQ/Amendment |
Dave wrote: The first one is stated in the rules (third paragraph of 4.4). Hi Dave & Steve I know where the rules for planetfall are, but are either of you saying that this sentence actually matches the rules? "A: The intent of the Planetfall rule is that units landing via Planetfall get to land for free at the start of the turn" Rather than requiring a roll to activate the spaceship, which could be the very last activation of the turn. Quote: I see no real need to change the rules regarding the counter charge. We should all know the details by now (having discussed it so many times over the years). It would be a change. It would also be a change to one of Epic's most counter-intuitive rules, one I've never managed to satisfactorily managed to explain to a new player ("The enemy are attacking! Counter charge men.... ummm... THAT way!"). I don't have a grudge against the rule, I've won lots of engagements and games using it (usually in a bit of a gamey-way  ) but it would be great to see it finally changed to what it probably should have been all along; counter-charge the closest attacking unit.
|
|
| Author: | dptdexys [ Tue Jul 07, 2015 8:50 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Outstanding items for FAQ/Amendment |
I think the planetfall rules are clear but the faq does need a slight change as it should read "at the start of the activation" not "the start of the turn" Matts revised faq works for me. The counter charge rules are definitely as intended and do not need a change. Players look at the situation from their god like position over the table instead of what the rule is trying to represent, the mess of close range warfare where units will respond to the nearest threat not ignore them for enemy further away. |
|
| Author: | kyussinchains [ Tue Jul 07, 2015 9:20 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Outstanding items for FAQ/Amendment |
dptdexys wrote: The counter charge rules are definitely as intended and do not need a change. Players look at the situation from their god like position over the table instead of what the rule is trying to represent, the mess of close range warfare where units will respond to the nearest threat not ignore them for enemy further away. ^^this
|
|
| Author: | jimmyzimms [ Tue Jul 07, 2015 11:21 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Outstanding items for FAQ/Amendment |
Matt's wording on #1 is clearer and works in my opinion. #2 is straight out changing a rule. It might be a rule you don't like but that's not a FAQ. It might be superior and advocated for but it's a bigger deal than throwing it up here. I'll note that we've changed core rules before (AC disengagement and consolidation moves being the most prevalent example) so it's not verboten, just it needs to discussed specifically. Post your thoughts and reasons and advocate. (I could personally care less, both approaches have merit)
|
|
| Author: | Dave [ Tue Jul 07, 2015 11:34 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Outstanding items for FAQ/Amendment |
The first was already removed when we did the review. The words you're quoting aren't in the latest version: http://www.tp.net-armageddon.org/faq/ |
|
| Author: | Matt-Shadowlord [ Tue Jul 07, 2015 11:51 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Outstanding items for FAQ/Amendment |
Dave wrote: The first was already removed when we did the review. The words you're quoting aren't in the latest version: http://www.tp.net-armageddon.org/faq/ Great, perhaps it's an old PDF, I'll check. jimmyzimms wrote: . Post your thoughts and reasons and advocate. (I could personally care less, both approaches have merit)Thanks jimmyzimms. I think what I will do is first find out if there is any interest in revisiting the issue from the rules committee. If there isn't then I won't waste anyone's time with a debate about it. The thing is when the topic comes up I sometimes feel like we're talking about a very different rule. Thee are players who occasionally find them in a situation to use the rule, and others who create the situation over and over again. For example dptdexys' description "Players look at the situation from their god like position over the table instead of what the rule is trying to represent, the mess of close range warfare where units will respond to the nearest threat not ignore them for enemy further away," sounds great and very thematic. My own experience is more like there is no mess or chaos, my men will simply set up formations to stretch enemy units in different directions over and over again with complete consistency, as if they have 'godlike knowledge' of the enemy and absolute understanding of how they will react. If you saw reports from tournament like cancon and WIWE where I won combat with 2 deathstrikes vs a mob of Skorchas and against an infantry regiment with 3 anti air guns, or just entirely got out of a combat with Eldar using a planned counter-charge backwards you'd see what I am talking about. It's fun but gamey  But anyway, if there's no enthusiasm to tackle the topic I'll leave it there. |
|
| Author: | dptdexys [ Tue Jul 07, 2015 2:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Outstanding items for FAQ/Amendment |
Counter charging away from an engagement should only happen to a player once or twice before they learn to plan the assault ranges better, I remember it happening to me once and I haven't made that mistake for at least 11 years. it's similar to being caught intermingled, players learn very quick the downside to being careless with zones of control, they learn quick, or should, to check how an enemy can counter charge when they are making an engagement action. Rules should not need changing because players haven't worked out how to avoid enemy units counter charging away or that they didn't realize how a rule worked in the first place which allowed this. |
|
| Author: | Mard [ Tue Jul 07, 2015 10:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Outstanding items for FAQ/Amendment |
Matt-Shadowlord wrote: ---- Here's one that has been knocking around causing gamey situations for years, so I was considering putting up diagrams and photos demonstrating some issues but since we all know what the problems are I'll just keep it simple: 1.12.4 Counter charges A unit must use their counter charge move to move directly towards the closest enemy unit. Change to: A unit must use their counter charge move to move directly towards the closest enemy unit in the attacking formation. +1 THIS The whole "must move to the closest enemy formation Is the cheesiet bulls**t thing I think that happens in these rules. I love epic, but this rule alone has made me almost rage way to many times and I agree with Shadowlord that it needs to change. I don't really think it's in the spirit of the game and would love to see it fixed |
|
| Author: | carlos [ Tue Jul 07, 2015 11:42 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Outstanding items for FAQ/Amendment |
I vote no change. It isn't counter-intuitive at all. Charge closest enemy. It's closest, it's an enemy, who cares that it just happened to be engaging at that moment. You can always choose not to counter-charge. |
|
| Author: | Kyrt [ Wed Jul 08, 2015 7:09 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Outstanding items for FAQ/Amendment |
Matt-Shadowlord wrote: Here's a simple one; the wording is either incorrect or at least misleading: Q: Can units transported by Planetfall (for example Assault troops in a Thunderhawk) disembark as soon as the transporting unit lands? A: The intent of the Planetfall rule is that units landing via Planetfall get to land for free at the start of the turn, and then function as if they had been on the table since the start of the turn. This means that they can take their action later in the turn, as they won't have used it up yet – they are literally counted as having done nothing during the current turn. Change to: Q: Can units transported by Planetfall (for example Assault troops in a Thunderhawk) disembark as soon as the transporting unit lands? A: The intent of the Planetfall rule is that units landing via Planetfall get to land for free when the spacecraft carrying them activates, and then function as if they had been on the table since the start of the turn. This means that they can take their action later in the turn, as they won't have used it up yet – they are literally counted as having done nothing during the current turn. I get that the answer to this first question is a) incorrect and b) a bit unnecessary as an FAQ, but is it not a bigger problem that neither version actually answers the question? The question is about disembarking, not landing. I know players do often have questions about that, so perhaps the FAQ entry would be justified, if it were an answer to the question that was asked
|
|
| Author: | MikeT [ Wed Jul 08, 2015 9:53 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Outstanding items for FAQ/Amendment |
Matt-Shadowlord wrote: It would be a change. It would also be a change to one of Epic's most counter-intuitive rules, one I've never managed to satisfactorily managed to explain to a new player ("The enemy are attacking! Counter charge men.... ummm... THAT way!"). "Whilst third company were currently being assaulted by a large mass of chaos cultists from the west, second squad, deployed on the Company's eastern flank, were unable to move to assist as they were pinned down by another mob of cultists moving on their positions from that direction as well" |
|
| Author: | Dave [ Wed Jul 08, 2015 11:41 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Outstanding items for FAQ/Amendment |
Kyrt wrote: I get that the answer to this first question is a) incorrect and b) a bit unnecessary as an FAQ, but is it not a bigger problem that neither version actually answers the question? The question is about disembarking, not landing. I know players do often have questions about that, so perhaps the FAQ entry would be justified, if it were an answer to the question that was asked I don't see how a FAQ would be any clearer than the rules: Quote: Any units being transported are allowed to disembark immediately on landing, or stay on board and disembark later.
|
|
| Page 1 of 3 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|