Broken and Fearless |
|
Chroma
|
Post subject: Broken and Fearless  Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 2:19 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
 |
 |
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 3:06 pm
Posts: 9684
Location: Montréal, QC, Canada
|
| Quote (Hena @ 09 Nov. 2005 (11:14)) | | At least there might be a problem with Nids. Since they are not broken (while are forced to leave combat) and can activate after the lost assault. If rules would prevent the abuse (eg. allow double movement to your target for assault) it would be nice. |
Non-fearless Tyranids still die if they end their withdrawl within 15cm of the enemy... it's very frustrating for Carnifex, let me tell you!
_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer
Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
Tactica
|
Post subject: Broken and Fearless Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 10:08 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Tactica
|
Post subject: Broken and Fearless Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2005 8:40 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
|
|
Hena,
Hmm... Perhaps you could thow out a new summary proposal for us to chew on then?
_________________
Rob
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Jow
|
Post subject: Broken and Fearless Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2005 12:55 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2005 8:30 pm
Posts: 40
|
|
Why not just say that Fearless units get no fall back moves? Simple, and no additional rules.
IMO, adding a whole bunch of "ZoC this" and "ZoC that" is just going to confuse alot of people and make it far too complicated for something that should be performed in about 6 seconds on the tabletop.
_________________ http://bluegrassgamers.com/Come check us out, cause we rock.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
asaura
|
Post subject: Broken and Fearless Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2005 9:43 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2003 11:34 am
Posts: 481
|
| Quote (Jow @ 10 Nov. 2005 (23:55)) | | Why not just say that Fearless units get no fall back moves? Simple, and no additional rules. |
Problems with mixed formations. For example, IG formations contain single Fearless Commissar units. Their fall backs will get a lot harder if the Commissars always get left behind.
One variation of this theme is an idea I think I read somewhere: formations consisting of only Fearless units get no fall back moves. This isn't quite as simple, but still pretty simple.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Baduin
|
Post subject: Broken and Fearless Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2005 9:49 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 9:31 pm
Posts: 34
|
|
My proposition for the withdrawal rules change was:
"Units belonging to formations withdrawing after lost engagement may ignore enemy zones of control while making a withdrawal move but may not move directly over enemy units.
Units belonging to formations withdrawing after being broken by Blast Markers or after failing the rally roll in the end phase cannot enter enemy zones of control."
"Any formation consisting only of Fearless units makes only a single move (instead of two) when withdrawing."
As for the first proposition, the ability to ignore Zones of Control is needed only when withdrawing after losing engagement. Making it available in other situations is unnecessary and creates a possiblity of abuses.
As regards second proposition, it should be noted that EpicA doesn't rule in which direction broken formation should withdraw, which is difficult (they should move towards their own lines, but away from the enemy, avoid impassable and difficult terrain, etc). Instead it penalises broken formation being near enemy. The problem is that formations consisting only of fearless units are free from nearly all such penalties. They can eg. use withdrawal movements to advance, in the hope of rallying and assaulting enemy, and don't have to fear additional lossess for blast markers.
My proposition makes broken fearless formations less effective, without removing their resilience. It certainly should be applied to infantry fearless formations. Such formations are at present broken - that is the reason why Cult Marine Forlorn Hopes have been removed from Chaos list.
As to whether it should be applied to broken fearless War Engines, it must depend to certain extent on what being broken represents in the case of a fearless War Engine. In the case of infantry it represents panic, at least a transitory one (not-fearless units), or conviction that the enemy is so prevalent that the only chance of survival lies in hiding (fearless units). But a Titan is not a infantry unit, nor an usual vehicle. It cannot hide. As it is fearless, we can assume that the princeps doesn panic when he is shot at a lot. He can go berserk, right. But being broken doesn't represent going berserk very well - why no shooting? why no assaults?
I think we all must agree that Epic Armageddon was designed for infantry and tank battles, and the war engines are a bit of an afterthought. Their rules aim not at representing them well, but at limiting the number of special rules. (Jervis hoped to make a proper war engine game later.) It is a valid decision. but it does have unfortunate consequences for an army made mostly or only of fearless war engines.
I would suggest considering some general changes of rules for war engines, or at least fearless war engines.
I would propose considering that Titans are priceless artifacts, most expensive weapons of Imperium except for the spaceships. They are incredibly costly and rare. Additionally, they are living avatars of the Machine God. The loss of even one such machine for Adeptus Mechanicus is not only a tremendous humiliation, it is a mortal sin and a blasphemy. Killing even ten thousand orks is no compensation for even a risk of such a loss.
I would suggest that AdMech would treat every risk to their precious Titans similarly like USAirForce would treat suggestion that they should risk a F-22 doing low-speed low-altitude bombing runs with MANPADS and ZSU-23 present to support some infantry - with the exception that a Titan is also an equivalent to a cathedral and a great historical monument.
They would be willing to risk Titans when facing enemy Titans. When fighting lowly infantry, they would be "very" cautious, and prone to withdraw at the first apparent risk.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Tactica
|
Post subject: Broken and Fearless Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2005 12:38 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:12 am
Posts: 2241
|
|
"Units belonging to formations withdrawing after lost engagement may ignore enemy zones of control while making a withdrawal move but may not move directly over enemy units. |
What happens if you are surrounded? May lead to intentional aligment of charges to surround and enemy formation in such a way that base-to-base FF circles are created.
Units belonging to formations withdrawing after being broken by Blast Markers or after failing the rally roll in the end phase cannot enter enemy zones of control."
|
I don't see any problems with this at this time.
"Any formation consisting only of Fearless units makes only a single move (instead of two) when withdrawing."
Fearless formations might permenantly stay in 30cm range of the enemy and thus be at a disadvantage to rally just because they are fearless.
Seems like an out of character consequence.
Doesn't mean as much for low initiative formations, but higher initiative formations that are all fearless will be hurt significantly by this (orcs?)
Cheers,
|
nealhunt
|
Post subject: Broken and Fearless Posted: Mon Nov 14, 2005 5:28 pm |
|
| Purestrain |
 |
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
|
|
Baduin: I think there's a fundamental difference in what we think is wrong.
I object most strongly to Fearless units charging into base contact when broken. Then, a token assault allows Fearless units to be drawn in automatically.
I saw a Warlord titan break and charge, followed by a decimated assault marine initiating an assault wherein the titan shredded the target, but by freak die rolls lost. The titan suffered no ill effects and charged AGAIN, followed by another assault initiated by a differen formation. Net result - 3 assaults for the titan, 2 losses, but ~60cm of movement around the board and tons of kills. Absolutely insane and it was actually bad for the person who broke a doggone Warlord titan. Breaking any unit should be a good thing, not give the opponent a way to exploit the rules.
So, forcing a Fearless unit to stay out of ZoC, like a normal unit must stay out of 15cm at the end of a withdrawal move seems like a better fix to me. No more broken charges.
You seem to object more to the Fearless formations that go charging forward. Personally, I don't mind that. I see that more as a tactical withdrawal where the commander thinks "Forget fighting these guys. That's not our objective anyway. Our objective is best accomplished over there." He then directs the troops to go that way.
So, you favor the limited move.
_________________
Neal
|
|
| Top |
|
|
