Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 2 of 6
  [ 85 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Alternate Fearless Rule Proposal
Ginger
 Post subject: Alternate Fearless Rule Proposal
PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 2:45 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5483
Location: London, UK
Ok guys, perhaps this thread could be revised to discuss when does "Fearless" become a problem and what to do about it?

In the past when testing Chaos lists with TRC, he came up with an army consisting entirely of individual Decimators. The basic strategy was to charge across the table, daring me to break them through shooting etc. When they did break, he then promptly used the withdraw move to gallop into my table-half and then into contact with my formations. We played several games using a number of different races; none got past turn 2 with several ending in turn 1 - it was very brutal. Fortunately the change to the Fearless rule curbs the "Fearless charge" and Decimators are now limited, but this does illustrate one way that "Fearless" can be abused.

As Neal points out Fearless formations are still vulnerable to shooting etc, and can though they cannot be destroyed if a broken formation is broken again through assault, but this does require several activations to achieve - so IMHO, makes Fearless units worth at least 1.5 - 2.0 the cost of normal ones (everything else being equal). However, I do tend to agree with the general sentiment that the impact of "Fearless" grows more exponentially with increasing numbers of Fearless formations. Obviously formation sizes and initiative rolls affect this, making it harder to break initially or easier to rally when broken. It is the initiative rating when rallying that is really crucial here IMHO. The issue being that people don't really care about the formation breaking if they know that they can easily rally it.

As an alternative suggestion, perhaps we could make it harder to rally Fearless troops when they are broken.
(The troops are too 'gung-ho' to bother about trying to fix the communications / broken kit etc).
Note, Although you could add a -1 modifier to rallying all-Fearless formations, perhaps this should only be applied to those races with large numbers of Fearless troops?

What do you think guys??

(Corrected because of Hena's post below)




_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Ginger
 Post subject: Alternate Fearless Rule Proposal
PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 10:19 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

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

(Hena @ Jan. 27 2008,07:19)
QUOTE

(Ginger @ Jan. 27 2008,03:45)
QUOTE
As Neal points out Fearless formations are still vulnerable to shooting etc, and can be destroyed if a broken formation is broken again through assault, but this does require several activations to achieve

Eh? Doesn't fearless protect from autokills in this case as well? We have certainly played that it does.

OOPs - my bad :blush: ?you are absolutely right Hena

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Ginger
 Post subject: Alternate Fearless Rule Proposal
PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 10:43 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5483
Location: London, UK
If we are to go with this suggestion, perhaps the wording might look like this:-
2.1.3 Fearless
Some units are noted as being fearless. Such units are either exceptionally brave or so crazed that they will never run away even when broken (though you can choose to have them make a withdrawal move if you want them to).

Units that are fearless are immune to damage from losing an assault (both the additional hits and being wiped out if already broken), from the damage inflicted by Blast markers if broken, and for being stationary within 15cms of the enemy. However, if they choose to withdraw, they are destroyed if they end their withdrawal move within 15cms of the enemy. Note that other units in the formation that are not fearless will be affected normally by additional hits for Blast markers or losing an assault or whatever ? just don?t allocate any of the hits to the units that are immune, but hand them out as normal to units that are not.

Fearless units still count as part of a formation, and so will sometimes be ?dragged along? as their formation withdraws even though they don?t have to, simply in order to stay in formation (see 1.2.1). Finally, note that not needing to withdraw can mean that fearless units can end an assault still in an enemy zone of control, or even in base?to?base contact with the enemy (see 1.7.3 for details of how to deal with situations where units start an action in an enemy zone of control).

This does raise two thoughts:-
- Should some races be able to modify the effects of this? (I am thinking specifically of 'Nids here)
- Is there any merit in modifying the statement to be :-
"However, if they choose to withdraw, they are destroyed if they end their withdrawal move within 15cms of any unbroken enemy"?

Finally, as you may remember, this topic was extensively discussed on the SG forums here.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
BlackLegion
 Post subject: Alternate Fearless Rule Proposal
PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 6:23 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 12:13 am
Posts: 8711
Location: Leipzig, Germany, Europe, Sol III, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Universe
Another proposal based on the Wh40k rules (oh no that disqualifies it on the spot!):

Te Fearless ability for Fearkess units in a formation with non-Fearless units is unchanged from the rulebook rules.

But entirely Fearless formations can't be broken. Period. All other rules which apply to non-Fearless units (hack down hits in lost assaults, surpression due to Blastmarkers, etc) apply unchanged wich meanth that if an entirely Fearless formations has as many Blastmarkers as units (double the number for entirely FearlessSpace Marines formations due to ATSKNF) each additional Blastmarker will cause a casualty/point of damage.

This will mean that an entirely Fearless formation which has as many Blastmarkers as units
- will not be completely whiped out if they loose an assault
- can't shoot due to surpression but can receive any other orders provided they pass the action test.
- aren't forced to retreat after a lost assault because they aren't broken so they aren't destroyed if within 15cm of enemy units.

What do you think? Remember that this is only a rules addition for entirely  Fearless formations. If only a singe unit is non-Fearless the rulebook rules apply.

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
pixelgeek
 Post subject: Alternate Fearless Rule Proposal
PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 6:35 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2003 8:10 pm
Posts: 2642
Location: Edmonton, Alberta

(Ginger @ Jan. 24 2008,15:56)
QUOTE
This is the second post in as many days that has  interpreted the term "Broken" to mean "Routed" (as I have done in the past). IMHO this is actually the more reasonable or *normal* interpretation of the term from other rulesets etc, and the source of some confusion.

So we write something to remove the source of confusion. A design note has been mentioned and this seems like a simpler solution than rewriting the rules to make them match a preconception of what the state means.

_________________
Guns don't break formations. Blast Markers break formations.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
BlackLegion
 Post subject: Alternate Fearless Rule Proposal
PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 6:43 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 12:13 am
Posts: 8711
Location: Leipzig, Germany, Europe, Sol III, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Universe
My proposal reflects the correct interpretetaion of "broken".
Units in an entirely Fearless formation will not loose their nerves. They will allways keep fighting discipline no matter the odds.
But they will keep their heads down if they are shot at (they can be surpressed) but they won't loose the ability to fight effectively.

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Moscovian
 Post subject: Alternate Fearless Rule Proposal
PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 8:59 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 6:32 pm
Posts: 6414
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania USA
Why not make an entirely new ability called "Fearless formation" or "really fearless" and put it in the lists that it would affect.  This way it won't bog down the existing fearless rule.

Of course, what constitutes an all fearless formation.  Ex. You have an Eldar Guardian formation with Wraithlords and Wraithguards.  The Guardians get wiped out along with the Farseer and the only things remaining are fearless.

Is it a fearless formation now?

This whole fearless discussion and the solutions proposed strike me as overly complex.  I don't have a solution that will make everyone happy, I'm just saying I'm not happy with these ideas that's all.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
BlackLegion
 Post subject: Alternate Fearless Rule Proposal
PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 9:07 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 12:13 am
Posts: 8711
Location: Leipzig, Germany, Europe, Sol III, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Universe
With your example: Yes you would now have an entirely Fearless formation with the rules above.

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Chroma
 Post subject: Alternate Fearless Rule Proposal
PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 9:14 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 3:06 pm
Posts: 9684
Location: Montréal, QC, Canada

(Moscovian @ Feb. 01 2008,19:59)
QUOTE
This whole fearless discussion and the solutions proposed strike me as overly complex. ?I don't have a solution that will make everyone happy, I'm just saying I'm not happy with these ideas that's all.

Well, here's my kick at the fearless can:

Fearless
Some units are noted as being fearless. Such units are either exceptionally brave or so crazed that they will never run away even when broken (though you can choose to have them make a withdrawal move if you want them to).

Units that are fearless are immune to damage from losing an assault (both the additional hits and being wiped out if already broken), for ending a withdrawal within 15cms of the enemy, and from the damage inflicted by Blast markers if broken. Note that other units in the formation that are not fearless will be affected normally by additional hits for Blast markers or losing an assault or whatever ? just don?t allocate any of the hits to the units that are immune, but hand them out as normal to units that are not. Additionally, a formation that consists entirely of fearless units does not suffer the -2 penalty for being broken when making rally tests (see 1.14.1).

Fearless units still count as part of a formation, and so will sometimes be ?dragged along? as their formation withdraws, even though they don?t have to, simply in order to stay in formation (see 1.2.1).

Finally, note that, despite not needing to withdraw, broken fearless units may not end an assault still in an enemy zone of control.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
ragnarok
 Post subject: Alternate Fearless Rule Proposal
PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 9:27 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 2:43 pm
Posts: 2084
Location: Reading, England
I haven't had tme to look at all the different ideas for fearless (sorry  :( ).  However one idea I have had to reduces the effectiveness of fearess is to make it so that they are twice as hard to kill due to hack down BM when broken.

so a normal fearless unit counts as having ATSKNF when hacked down or broken and fearless marine units now need 4BM to destroy when broken or 4 pip different to be lost as casulties when hacked down.

_________________
Tyranid air marshal
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Moscovian
 Post subject: Alternate Fearless Rule Proposal
PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 9:33 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 6:32 pm
Posts: 6414
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania USA
Finally, note that, despite not needing to withdraw, broken fearless units may not end an assault still in an enemy zone of control.


The problem is that if you are in somebody's ZoC this rule contradicts itself.  "not needing to withdraw" and "may not end in a ZoC".  Perhaps state it like this...
"Broken fearless units are only required to move out of an enemy's ZOC."  But then what do you do if you CAN'T move out of the ZoC?  Now there needs to be another line in the rules about this and that.

Has anyone played a game where the broken charging fearless formation won it for them?  I'm just curious.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Dwarf Supreme
 Post subject: Alternate Fearless Rule Proposal
PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 9:42 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 8:45 pm
Posts: 11149
Location: Canton, CT, USA

(Chroma @ Feb. 01 2008,15:14)
QUOTE
Additionally, a formation that consists entirely of fearless units does not suffer the -2 penalty for being broken when making rally tests (see 1.14.1).

I like that provision. It seems appropriate.

_________________
"I don't believe in destiny or the guiding hand of fate." N. Peart
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Chroma
 Post subject: Alternate Fearless Rule Proposal
PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 9:44 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 3:06 pm
Posts: 9684
Location: Montréal, QC, Canada

(Moscovian @ Feb. 01 2008,20:33)
QUOTE
Has anyone played a game where the broken charging fearless formation won it for them? ?I'm just curious.

Yep, Chosen Daemon Prince plus Obliterator broken by fire "charged" into base contact with a battered Leman Russ formation, basing the Commissar's tank... nearby Retinue assaults to FF range in a semi-clip...

Even with the two broken units, the Russes had more BMs, lost their Commissar and wound up granting BTS.

And the "don't have to withdraw" and "can't end in enemy ZoC" aren't contradictory; it also prevents the "broken charge" with a double against some other formations and just means, if they're stay near the enemy that broke them, they just have to back off slightly instead of the normal more than 15cm of non-fearless troops.

I've seen it to nastier effect with older versions of Tyranids... was one of the few ways a Carnifex could get in base with enemies!  *laugh*

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
BlackLegion
 Post subject: Alternate Fearless Rule Proposal
PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 9:49 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 12:13 am
Posts: 8711
Location: Leipzig, Germany, Europe, Sol III, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Universe
How about: Broken Fearless units must stand out of base contact with enemy units or are destroyed?

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
  Print view Previous topic | Next topic 
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 2 of 6
  [ 85 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

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

Search for:
Jump to:  


Powered by phpBB ® Forum Software © phpBB Group
CoDFaction Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net