Tactical Command | View topic - Stubborn development thread

Page 2 of 12

[ 172 posts ]

Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 12 Next

View unanswered posts | View active topics View unread posts | View new posts | View your posts

Stubborn development thread

Erik M

Post subject: Stubborn development thread

Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 1:03 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 8:41 pm
Posts: 1480
Location: Gothenburg,Sweden

(epilgrim @ Jun. 03 2008,12:52)

QUOTE

(Hena @ Jun. 03 2008,12:42)

QUOTE

Well you have to keep track of that (as in single marker on formation, which negates first BM acquired) if I understood that correctly.

fair enough, a Stubborn marker would be a relatively easy thing to manage. Happily this game relies on relatively few status markers, I don't think one additional counter will be a hinderance.

Besides the marking issue, what do you thisnk of the idea?

How about a "save" until it's failed. When failed the BM's start landing as usual. But first the unit has to fail the save (presumably a 4+). That way no markers needed.
Ie as long there's no BM there' a save. If there's a BM, then there's no save.

_________________
It would be nice to get lightspeed,
so far we can only reach slight speed.- Erik M
092b85658e746a91d343e53509d357744e56f641

Top

epilgrim

Post subject: Stubborn development thread

Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 1:34 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2003 12:28 pm
Posts: 362

Keep it mind a BM is place automatically if the formation fails an activation test and when they are targeted by another formation with a shooting attack.

_________________
Squat/Demiurg Army Co-Champion (in cahoots with Jaldon)

Top

Erik M

Post subject: Stubborn development thread

Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 2:09 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 8:41 pm
Posts: 1480
Location: Gothenburg,Sweden

Correct, a 3+ save then...? Or none for such at all? Ie BM's only for actual losses?
Not for getting shot at, not for failing activation, not for taking casulties while broken...?
Whatever NOT a marker.

_________________
It would be nice to get lightspeed,
so far we can only reach slight speed.- Erik M
092b85658e746a91d343e53509d357744e56f641

Top

Ginger

Post subject: Stubborn development thread

Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 2:13 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5483
Location: London, UK

Not sure you even need a marker either - especially if applied as a racial characteristic like TSKNF. Ignoring the 1st BM could provide some interesting effects in assaults and resolutions too - you would need to get 2 or more BMs on a formation to count in the resolution. All in all, this would make them quite 'hard' in a number of ways which would need testing, but does feel interesting
- slightly better activation capabilities, so more 'disciplined',
- slightly more resilient to damage
- a slight edge in assaults

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

Top

nealhunt

Post subject: Stubborn development thread

Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 2:36 pm

Purestrain

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA

The primary suggestion I have is that assault bonuses not be used.

The concept of Squat/Demiurg stubbornness is about morale and command and control rather than skill in assault. In fact, you could even do something like the Intractable rule Black Legion came up with for the Dark Angels as a downside to the trait.

===

As far as "BM resistance" kinds of suggestions go, they all have various merits and drawbacks.

A "spirit stones" approach is clearly not hard for players to handle, and there's readily available text. It is, however, a big difference in formation durability and can't be simply plugged into an existing list without requiring adjustments. It can lead to lots of no-BM formations.

Extra Leader units is quick and easy but may not work that well for small formations, as Hena pointed out, because it also leads to lots of 0BM formations.

Personally, I like the 2d6 for rallying. That almost guarantees that formations will rally unless they are in a really bad situation, but a basic rally doesn't necessarily mean that the formations are going to be without BMs. The army would shed more BMs as a whole, but won't necessarily have the advantages for having 0BM nearly every time they rally.

Another suggestion that no one has brought up is an extra D6 when Regrouping. Either on a Hold-Regroup or Marshall action, they roll 3d6 and take the highest. This would favor a "solid line, rolling forward" kind of approach and would also help any void-shielded war engines to "button up" and take extra punishment in return for a lack of movement and/or fire. On the downside, this depends on the army list and formation size. It's only useful for mid-sized formations and larger because it really only makes a statistical difference if you're Regrouping with 4+ BMs and doesn't make a lot of functional difference once you get above 7 BMs or so (unless you have Leaders).

I don't care for the "1 BM more than normal" approach. I can't articulate a rational objection. It just seems odd to me.

The "armor save vs. hackdown" approach seems pretty decent. That doesn't help rallying or command and control, but does reflect resistance to full-on routing and panic.

_________________
Neal

Top

epilgrim

Post subject: Stubborn development thread

Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 6:36 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2003 12:28 pm
Posts: 362

Neal,

Always good to have your insight, thanks.

I am very interested in seeing the Squat/Demiurg lists given a broader level of support due to the number of players out there feeling disenfranchized by GW's business decisions.

That being said I do think that there are some workable concepts here to define them without falling back on other existing lists or rules.

I certainly understand your concern about assault bonus' through the playtesting and balancing I did for the Demiurg Consortium. Even if that ends up preferred it would take all of the game mechanics and variables into account before being finalized.

Intractable is not what I see as a best fit for them because they are not as tough as marines no matter how stubborn they are, neither are they as disciplined as Dark Angels are characterized as.

I really have no interest in going down the spirit stones path as that complicates the values and sizes of each formation in ways I'd rather not have to factor.

Extra leaders is indeed a simple fix, but you hit on the crux of my opposition to it's use; the formation sizes and the toughness of each unit would make multiple leaders an abusive option.

Using 2d6 to rally or 3d6 to regroup are problems that that go into probability.

In most cases a Squat formation would need a 4+ to rally, so 50%. With 2d6 the odds go to 75%. Given how much effort goes into killing them, having them rally that easily is a bad idea (IMO).

Regrouping on 3d6 as you accurately describe gives the formations the likelyhood of getting at least a 4+ (88%) and a 42% chance of rolling a 6. Again the moderate formation do very well and the smaller formation are guaranteed to be in good order more often than not leading to a very flustered opponent.

More thought has to go into any approach allowing a formation to ignore a BM or to adapt ATSKNF but it is a possiblity.

Allowing saves on hackdowns is kind of a semi-fearless, but it feels like we'ed be giving them reinforced armour and minimizing the impact of an opponents victory against a set of units that are tough to begin with.

Too early to start trimming yet, but I do appreciate the substance of your concerns and those of everyone commenting. Whether it wants to or not Stubborn will be re-forged!

Still hammering away on my blackberry, sadly it is a half-size keyboard, so typos are legion

_________________
Squat/Demiurg Army Co-Champion (in cahoots with Jaldon)

Top

jaldon454

Post subject: Stubborn development thread

Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 11:49 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 4:38 am
Posts: 303
Location: Utah, Texas, or some Pacific Island

Ok got a couple of Flash Games in to sorta feel out some of the ideas presented.

Suggestion #1 ? The squats may choose to fight another round of combat instead of performing the resolution step.

Didn't try this one as we already did try it with the original Squat List, and it didn't make them seem Stubborn then.

Suggestion #2 ? In Close Combat the Squat opponent does not gain the bonus for out numbering and out numbering by 2:1.

While this may seem to make them Stubborn in combat the No Negative for outnumbering 2 to 1 really hurt opponents ability to move off the smaller Squat formations Bike Guild for example. Maybe a reduction to -1 for 2 to 1 outnumber?

Suggestion #3 ? Squats ignore the -1 modifier for enemy formations with 30cm during the Rally phase.

While this one seemed to have promise, and didn't have a dominating effect overall, it just didn't make the Squats feel stubborn. We might want to fudge some more with this one.

Suggestion #4 ? Give the Squats access to more than one Leader per formation.

We have tried this many, many times before in playtesting other list, and it never worked so we didn't try it.

Suggestion #5 ? The Squats are given the Leader ability as a Formation Ability. Additionally they would be able to add Leader stands to the formation.

Ditto with #4

Suggestion #6 ? a toned down version of ATSKNF
- count 1 less BM for suppression
- count 1 less BM for assault resolution (minimum of 1)
- count 1 less BM for breaking

We tried this with the "1 Less" and then with "2 Less" for each just to push it a bit. The Squats were harder to move off, and were a bit more resolute. It did seem to give an undue resiliance to smaller Squat Formations as they collect fewer BMs to start with. Want to play with this one a bit more.

Suggestion #7 ? Squat formations remove d6 Blast Markers during the Rally Phase.

Didn't get to try this one yet.

Suggestion #8 ? The Squats are allowed to make Armor Saves against automatic kills during Assault Resolution and when shot at while Broken.

This did produce some interesting assault results as it made the Squats seem semi-fearless, but it didn't seem to make them feel Stubborn. That said we want to mess a bit more with this one too. (Not to mention I want to put this one in my pocket for another possible idea)

I would like to discuss this as actively as possible since we seem to be losing Jaldon in the near future and I would welcome his insight while he is still available.

:blush:

Haven't gotten the trip schedule yet but the scuttle but is three to four weeks (End of June/Early July). I am hoping to have a land line so my Laptop will work and I won't be out of touch, say 50-50

Thanks All...........

Jaldon

_________________
I know a dead parrot when I see one and I'm looking at one right now.
Tyranid AC

Top

epilgrim

Post subject: Stubborn development thread

Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 12:24 am

Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2003 12:28 pm
Posts: 362

Jaldon,

thanks for the feedback. Your tests seem to reflect much of my concern. I will run some tests as well this weekend and we can compare notes.

Regadless I would like to work directly with you to see if we can reconcile our units. In my mind it does not matter what we call them, just as long as we can come to some agreement (or as close as two stubborn folks can get ?

).

I was putting them side by side and most of the time it seems we are in accord or off on only one stat. Here's hoping at least!

I'll email you my notes for your consideration.

Steve

_________________
Squat/Demiurg Army Co-Champion (in cahoots with Jaldon)

Top

nealhunt

Post subject: Stubborn development thread

Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 2:19 pm

Purestrain

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA

epilgrim: Can you define the concept you're going for, at least in general terms? I don't understand some of your comments/objections. It seems like everything that increases BM removal or chance to rally is bad in some way, usually because you are concerned the opponent will feel "robbed" in some way. I just don't see a way around that, to be honest and in some of your comments I don't think it's as extreme as you portrayed.

For example, on the idea of 3d6 for regrouping you state:
Regrouping on 3d6 as you accurately describe gives the formations the likelyhood of getting at least a 4+ (88%) and a 42% chance of rolling a 6. Again the moderate formation do very well and the smaller formation are guaranteed to be in good order more often than not leading to a very flustered opponent.

But in reality, it's a pretty small bump. It's main effect is to chop off the lower end bad results, making it ~90% for a 4+ instead of 75%. The increase to the average and chances of high numbers are noticeable (about +0.5 average, about +10% chance for a 6) but not huge and it doesn't increase the maximum. That's not the kind of thing people usually feel is unfair.

Another example that I don't understand is the 2d6 rally. My concern was not that the chance to rally is so much better. Personally, a high chance to rally, even when broken, is less bothersome than a lower chance to rally but likely ending up with 0BM. The potential problem I see is that in the late game there is a probability of out-activating the opponent, giving the Squats the feel of tactical superiority instead of tenaciousness.

There are, however, some factors that should counteract that potential effect. Their moderate Strategy Rating, 2+ initiative and the fact that they would likely still have BMs even with a successful rally should slow them down. Even though they may have higher activations, they aren't going to be doing a flurry of activity at the beginning of a late-game turn. It should end up with them slogging forward after the opponent is out of activations, which seems like a good effect. I'm pretty sure this is more or less what Jaldon and crew observed.

In any case, if you want other similar but less effective bonuses, a straight +1 to rally would provide less of a proportional bonus on the "bad end" for the Squats, e.g. 4+ to rally becomes a 67% chance instead of 75%, however, it makes them more likely to rally when they already have a good chance, e.g. 2+ rally becomes automatic.

Another option to tone down slightly from 2d6 would be to make it a "reroll" on rallying, rather than 2d6. That would give the same statistical range as 2d6, but would prevent use of an SC reroll because only one reroll allowed.

_________________
Neal

Top

epilgrim

Post subject: Stubborn development thread

Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 7:05 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2003 12:28 pm
Posts: 362

I don't want to come across as contrary, and I do welcome your questioning my positions on certain game mechanics and design intent. I need to be at a proper PC to answer your questions in a manner that will be less subject to a seemingly disconnected response. So I will get back to you later today.

To be honest, the blackberry gives me access, but the typing and functionality is less than ideal.

_________________
Squat/Demiurg Army Co-Champion (in cahoots with Jaldon)

Top

fredmans

Post subject: Stubborn development thread

Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 7:22 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 3:15 pm
Posts: 1316
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

(jaldon454 @ Jun. 03 2008,23:49)

QUOTE

Suggestion #2 ? In Close Combat the Squat opponent does not gain the bonus for out numbering and out numbering by 2:1.

While this may seem to make them Stubborn in combat the No Negative for outnumbering 2 to 1 really hurt opponents ability to move off the smaller Squat formations Bike Guild for example. Maybe a reduction to -1 for 2 to 1 outnumber?

I have started playtesting as well, and I echo your concern. When I first voiced the idea, I also suggested a toned-down version like yours. No reduction for being outnumbered, but still -1 for being outnumbered 2:1.

In combination with some sort of rally test modifier, OR the option of adding a Leader unit, I felt it gave squat units a certain "bounce" of stubborness. Regroup, fight on.

@epilgrim:

I have looked into your demiurg list and see a lot of interesting ideas and hard work being put into it. We all agree that multiple leaders in small units would be a bad thing generally. With the demiurg possibility of boosting the size of the unit, an upgrade to a second leader unit could come along with increasing the size of its formation. 2 leaders for an expensive 14 unit formation would not be over the top, would it?

My input, for what it's worth
/Fredmans

_________________
Follow my Epic painting projects: Tyranids vs Steel Legion and Inquisition vs Lost and the Damned @
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=14636

Top

epilgrim

Post subject: Stubborn development thread

Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 10:23 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2003 12:28 pm
Posts: 362

Fredmans,

Thanks for taking a look, sorry if I jotted down your idea incorrectly!

I can take a look and are what the effect of allowing a leader in the affiliate upgrades might have.

_________________
Squat/Demiurg Army Co-Champion (in cahoots with Jaldon)

Top

fredmans

Post subject: Stubborn development thread

Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 9:44 am

Brood Brother

Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 3:15 pm
Posts: 1316
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

No offense taken

You did not jot it down incorrectly at all. After all, this is a development thread, isn't it?

/Fredmans

_________________
Follow my Epic painting projects: Tyranids vs Steel Legion and Inquisition vs Lost and the Damned @
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=14636

Top

Moscovian

Post subject: Stubborn development thread

Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 11:33 am

Brood Brother

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 6:32 pm
Posts: 6414
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania USA

I really have no interest in going down the spirit stones path as that complicates the values and sizes of each formation in ways I'd rather not have to factor.

Why not? ?You already have a free ability (all formations are inherently inspiring) on every formation that you can swap out. ?Now I am fully aware a free leader will be more helpful to some formations than free inspiring and less helpful to others. ?But we are talking about each formation losing and gaining something. ?Surely the point tweaks aren't going to be overwhelming (possibly not even necessary). ?

The idea that all sized formations benefit from a free leader is consistent with the 'stubborn' feel. ?They aren't stubborn when massed up, or when outgunned, or when assaulting, or when far away. ?They aren't stubborn when they have certain stands in their formations. They are just stubborn. ?I am also aware that the smaller formations will benefit more from this help, but smaller formations are easier to break. ?Once broken, a leader function gives you no assistance at all until you rally.

It is a simple, easy to digest special rule.

The re-rolls on rallies struck me as overpowered when we played one of the older Squat lists before (can't remember which one). Perhaps it was because everything else was overpowered and I'm not giving the idea a fair shake, but that is just how I recollect it.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

Top

rpr

Post subject: Stubborn development thread

Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 2:16 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2007 1:32 pm
Posts: 516

stubborn: if squats lose assault, they take hackdowns normally, but combat is then continued as if has been tied. There is no choice on this. If they lose for the second time, they fall back normally.

Top

Print view

Previous topic | Next topic

Page 2 of 12

[ 172 posts ]

Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 12 Next

Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

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

Jump to:

Stubborn development thread

Who is online