Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 3 of 12
  [ 172 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 12  Next

Stubborn development thread
nealhunt
 Post subject: Stubborn development thread
PostPosted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 2:27 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain

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

(rpr @ Jun. 05 2008,14:16)
QUOTE
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.

This is more of a penalty than a benefit.

It might help in the case of an unlucky resolution roll where they were ahead.  But even that is contingent on them being better overall and the expectation that the following round wouldn't cause them to come out with a worse modifier and lose anyway.  With hackdowns removing units and attacks, it's entirely possible they would come out worse.

It might help if they squats had much better FF/CC and the initial loss was due to non-kill modifiers.  In that case, subsequent rounds could allow them to improve their number of kills compared to the enemy.  And, again, that's still assuming that the hackdowns from the initial loss don't overwhelm their ability to come back.

Otherwise, if they lost the first time, it's likely they will lose the second time, with a bigger ratio, resulting in another round of even more brutal hackdowns, turning any lost assault into massive destruction.


Or is a penalty was what you were going for?

_________________
Neal
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
epilgrim
 Post subject: Stubborn development thread
PostPosted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 3:59 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

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

(nealhunt @ Jun. 04 2008,14:19)
QUOTE
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.

Blackberry or no it seems as this is the best I can do this morning.

Neal,

First and foremost I am trying to come up with one rule for Stubborn, regardless of the result, so Jaldon and I can represent the Squats and Demiurg as one people, albeit with different histories.

If these theads are any indication we are both willing to consider any suggestions so long as they don't mess up either army by making them more effective than they already are. When an army wins and loses in equal measure it becomes tough to see changing it, but I am willing to make a good try of it, especially since Jaldon is available again, at least for now.

I see morale and leadership as the most important part of the game, I think expressing concern over how it affects these lists is appropriate and not a predisposition to see these modifiers as bad.

I have seen a number of good suggestions presented from everyone and I have not ruled any of them out. I am a firm believer in playtesting to weed out unworkable rules.

Moving forward I hope to narrow the list down to two or maybe three for serious playtest rules and I would like as many Squat/Demiurg players as well as their opponents to provide feedback.

If my comments are coming across as absolute refusals to consider certain options, they are not intended as such. They have all come from direct experience with these lists and other games of EA. I will do my best to keep an open mind.

_________________
Squat/Demiurg Army Co-Champion (in cahoots with Jaldon)
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
nealhunt
 Post subject: Stubborn development thread
PostPosted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 4:07 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain

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

_________________
Neal
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
zombocom
 Post subject: Stubborn development thread
PostPosted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 11:30 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 1:49 am
Posts: 5569

(epilgrim @ Jun. 05 2008,15:59)
QUOTE
...so Jaldon and I can represent the Squats and Demiurg as one people, albeit with different histories....

But they aren't the same. They're not the same race, they're not the same people. Squats are abhumans, Demiurg are aliens, and while they share some similarities they aren't in any way the same thing.

There's no reason they should share special rules.

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Ginger
 Post subject: Stubborn development thread
PostPosted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 12:10 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5483
Location: London, UK
II understand the intentional distinction between the races - but from a purely game mechanics point of view, will they have similar characteristics - and more importantly, how will the two races differ??

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
epilgrim
 Post subject: Stubborn development thread
PostPosted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 12:29 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2003 12:28 pm
Posts: 362
that remains to be seen, as of right now both lists are structured differently and there are some differences in units rules.

I want to try to bring some of the core units closer together, but that discussion is between Jaldon and me for the moment.

If your curious enough read both and see what you think.

_________________
Squat/Demiurg Army Co-Champion (in cahoots with Jaldon)
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
The_Real_Chris
 Post subject: Stubborn development thread
PostPosted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 4:41 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm
Posts: 8139
Location: London
Heres something else, again a part of ATSKNF. Squats take twice as many bm's to supress/break. Just that bit of the rule. That makes them tenacious, whilst leaving them to die like dogs in a failed assault and not shift bm's easily.

If you want a bit odder, twice as many just to break, so one bm, one suppression still, but entirely suppressed formations don't break as quickly as other armies.




_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Onyx
 Post subject: Stubborn development thread
PostPosted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 8:46 am 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 10:14 am
Posts: 3416
Location: Western Australia

(The_Real_Chris @ Jun. 06 2008,11:41)
QUOTE
Heres something else, again a part of ATSKNF. Squats take twice as many bm's to supress/break. Just that bit of the rule. That makes them tenacious, whilst leaving them to die like dogs in a failed assault and not shift bm's easily.

I actually quite like this idea.

It's a simple proven game rule (rather than coming up with something new) and would give the Dwarves a feeling of stubborn resistance during the game.


There have been several other good ideas but I'm in favour of only having one special rule to reflect the Squats stubborness (Keep it simple) and I think some of the others would only work well if a couple were used together (creating more work/bookeeping etc).

_________________
Just call me Steve.

NetEA Rules Chair
NetEA FAQ

Want to play Iron Warriors in Epic Armageddon? Click HERE
Some of my Armies.
My Hobby site.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
epilgrim
 Post subject: Stubborn development thread
PostPosted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:40 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

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

Thanks again for another idea, I'll see how it holds up under fire  :p , i mean testing this weekend.

Onyx,

KISS indeed, even if a combination of ideas is used, the application will be as uncomplicated as possible. I couldn't agree more.

_________________
Squat/Demiurg Army Co-Champion (in cahoots with Jaldon)
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Moscovian
 Post subject: Stubborn development thread
PostPosted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 2:05 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 6:32 pm
Posts: 6414
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania USA
So a formation of 10 units requires 20 BMs to break?  That is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more powerful than removing a single BM after rallying.

Ex. Ten infantry units take 3 casualties.  It rallies.

ATSKNF Mod. 4BMs received on remaining seven units.  None are suppressed and the formation fights at full strength. Rallying takes off 2BMs and so it goes into Turn 2 with 2 BMs and fighting at full strength.

Spirit Stone Mod. 4BMs received on remaining seven units.  4 are suppressed and the formation fights at less than half strength.  Rallying takes off 3 BMs and so it goes into Turn 2 with 1 BM and fighting with one unit suppressed.

The former of the two is obviously more powerful and will require significant point changes.

_________________
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  
 
rpr
 Post subject: Stubborn development thread
PostPosted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 6:50 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

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

(nealhunt @ Jun. 05 2008,16:27)
QUOTE
Or is a penalty was what you were going for?

Both advantage and penalty. Their fearless units would be quite formidable. If that would make non-fearless too weak, then it could be this way:

If squats lose assault, it is counted as draw and new round is kept. If they lose for the second time, they fall back and take hackdowns as usual.

This would still mean that if surrounded by much bigger enemy, they would get hacked down more effectively as others so it would be penalty sometimes, but most of the time it would help against bad resolution rolls. And give them possibility to 'fight for almost the last man', stubbornigly not giving room..
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
nealhunt
 Post subject: Stubborn development thread
PostPosted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 9:58 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
rpr:  I think messing with assault resolution in such an extreme way is a bad idea in general.  It is going to do a lot of weird things, including the squats wanting to lose if it's due to a bad roll.

"I'm at +3 and... I lost!  Awesome!  Now I get to stand around and crush even more of the enemy."

_________________
Neal
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Evil and Chaos
 Post subject: Stubborn development thread
PostPosted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:04 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
I prefer the simple solution:


- Squats may take armour saves against hackdown hits / BM's whilst broken.

- Squats recieve +1 inititative when marshalling.

- Squats do not recieve a -1 initiative penalty if the enemy is within 30cm in the end phase.


KISS

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
epilgrim
 Post subject: Stubborn development thread
PostPosted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:16 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2003 12:28 pm
Posts: 362
Pyrrhic struggles are some thing I would only want to happen to me as a rare dramatic event, not as a regular option.

I do see why RPR suggested it as a display of stubborness, however it seems potentially fatal to the chances of victory. The idea is similar to another suggestion that TRC made.

RPR,

Did you see the one I am referring to (#1)? Do you see another way of working with your idea, but making it less of a handicap or maybe a not so spititeful follow-up combat round?




_________________
Squat/Demiurg Army Co-Champion (in cahoots with Jaldon)
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
jaldon454
 Post subject: Stubborn development thread
PostPosted: Sat Jun 07, 2008 2:29 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 4:38 am
Posts: 303
Location: Utah, Texas, or some Pacific Island
Just for a bit of clarity on the subject..........Form "Ork and Squat Warlords"

Squats are particularly resolute in close combat, refusing to go down without putting in a good fight. To show this Squat infantry fighting in close combat  can re-roll any close combat dice which comes up as a one. This means they will give most opponents a run for their money as they will normally get a good (or at least reasonable) dice score."


This is the result we are trying to achieve with "Stubborn". We are not trying to improve their morale, per se, nor their ability to shake off BMs.

Before anyone suggests it we did try the re-roll of any "1" in assaults, and it just didn't work. The basic problem is in SM/TL the close combat system is too far removed from the system used in Epic-A (Most units had no saves, many had wicked Close Combat bouses, and there was no assault roll off to consider)

Doing so in Epic -A gave the Squats a heavy advantage in Assaults when one considers the greater number of rolls used in Epic-A, over the re-roll of any "1" per 2d6 used in CC.

This is why we decided to add an extra dice roll to the Squat roll off allowing them to pick the best of the three, as its effects come into play after the combat dice had already been rolled (A single dice compared to multiple re-rolls).

One thought on the subject would be to allow the Squats to re-roll any dice that comes up as a "1" in the assault roll off. Thus allowing them to never suffer the negative of a pair of ones, but allowing a better chance for a pair of twos.

Just my two cents

Jaldon

_________________
I know a dead parrot when I see one and I'm looking at one right now.
Tyranid AC
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
  Print view Previous topic | Next topic 
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 3 of 12
  [ 172 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 12  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 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