We're talking about using VASSAL to get in playtests/training/practice games; it's a fan supported effort that GW has now prevented from progressing via legal channels.  So only the models that were current at the time of the cease-and-desist are in the module.

You can still just rename them to try out games; look at it as an EPIC "simulator" that allows you to hone your game against other opponents outside your local tournament seen.  You don't have to keep track of "what is what"... it's all labelled.

Just a helpful suggestion.  

And I'm done with this thread (but will gladly discuss rules in a different thread).

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?

Is the complaint here because it is unbalanced, or that people think it "feels" wrong.


Balance is pretty easy to address.  For an assault to be near-guaranteed success and decisive, it should require 2 to 3 times the assets of the defender (depending on how specialized the assets are).  So, the question of whether this is a balanced tactic comes down to asking a series of questions.

What allows this to be set up?  How many points does the attacker have to use to get into this position?  How much prep and how many acivations are tied up in this?  How much damage does the target really take?

As an example, let's say this is an IG mech infantry company with Hydra being assaulted by Marines - #1 is 4 Assault Marines with Chaplain and #2 is 6 Tacticals (I and M, respectively).  That's 450 points of IG versus 525 points of SM.

Average kills by IG - ~1
Average kills by SM - ~4  (assuming no cover except vehicles)

Resolution mods for the Marines would be...

Kills - +3
Outnumbering - -2
Inspiring - 0 (chaplain v commissar)
BMs - +2 (assuming best case for Marines)

Most of the time SMs should win and kill ~7 units, or about 1/3 of the IG formation.  At +3, there's still a 20% chance of failure in resolution.  If the attackers have any BMs, that's an obvious offset.

That's a high chance to win but it's not assured.  7 kills still leaves an IG mech infantry formation quite combat-effective.  It's not a decisive assault, so that seems like about the right ballpark.

It is arguably a little bit more damage than you might expect, but I threw all the assumptions in favor of the Marines.  The IG don't have any 10cm counter charge moves that would force the support formations farther away or allow units from the opposite flank to get into range of the attacking formation, which would almost certainly be the case.  Also, a maneuver like that will require more involvement from the attacker in the form of prep fire or air transport or whatever, so the points-used ratio is a bit better.

I can see the argument that it might be a bit unbalanced with only ~20% advantage in points, but it's totally idealized.

What outcome would you propose?  What should the likely results be?


As far as feel... I don't know what to say.  A coordinated attack that pins the enemy flank is an effective tactic.  Even if the game mechanics of which models move where and which stands fire aren't exactly perfect with respect to reflecting expected "real world" activity, the end result is dead on to my mind.

Is it the motions you go through in generating the end result that are causing objection?  Is it just a disconnect between the abstracted game process and "real world"?

_________________
Neal

Couple of fast formations that aren't total losers in FF. Two cheapish formation like land speeders will do the trick. 2 activations. Pretty much any formation short of warlord titan will be toast. Broken with not insignificant formation minimum, more likely with heavy casualties. Regimental HQ? Toast. Russ company? Toast. I rather face Hena's flamer assault than this one again. I have lot more chances against that.

And nothing you can do against that.

And it's not like that's one shot trick. The formations don't go anywhere so they will be doing more damage in future.

And btw formation vs formation comparisons are inheritently flawed to begin with. We aren't talking about one use formations here. Better would be to ask what formation can accomplish during the game. Here we have dirt cheap formations that move fast as hell, able to contest objectives almost anywhere, MW shots, MW FF so they can hurt pretty much anything, skimmer, decent in FF and thanks to abusing this rule ability to toast almost any formation at will. And able to do this more than once unless opponent uses something to take them out(and often this is more expensive. Even russ company isn't quaranteed to take out speeder formation assuming it can even get shots off without exposing themselves to more speeder formations to make toast out of them).

Even with spirit of rule version of assault rules land speeders and similar formations would be very good but if you play with these abusable broken rules they are just insane.

Totally broken and totally illogical. Normal assault resolution after defenders move out of range pales in comparison. That's not unbalanced to either side(since it only happens if both wants it) and lot more logical than this one.

Stupid rule lawyer rules. Why this hasn't been fixed long ago when it would be easy to create non-broken logical system?

_________________
www.tneva.net

No. You're exaggerating. A reg. hq can do 15 cm countercharges to drag in supporting enemy formations. All it takes is one or two guardsmen inside chimeras.

A Russ company will not take many casualties from the combined FF fire of two speeders formations (average result is less than 2 kills from 10 5+ MW FF shots) and thus is will end up with a good score on the assault resolution. Assuming four Russ firing back, they'll score one kill on the speeders:

Marines +1 for casualties (rounded in marines favor)
Marines +2 for BM
Russes  +1 for Inspiring
Russes  +2 for outnumbering (rounded in Russes' favor)

If it is as big of a balance problem as you state, coming up with real examples should not be difficult and you shouldn't have to resort to hyperbole like this.  So far your only example from play was after 7 failed activations in a row.

Why this hasn't been fixed long ago when it would be easy to create non-broken logical system?

_________________
Neal

Which is death sentence to the formation. Troops inside transports is just BEGGING for annihilation.

In 4 years I can count with one hand times when leaving troops inside transports hasn't resulted in ridiculously easy annihilation of formation. He wouldn't have needed to abuse loop holes to scrap the formation then!

_________________
www.tneva.net

If it's so easy, lay it on us.

If you want the "counter charge assaulting formation" idea, that has been discussed multiple times and analyzed quite closely as well.  It's just the flip side of "nearest unit" and has the exact same problems.  It can do the same target control that "nearest unit" can.  Different positioning, but the same end result - the target cannot countercharge into range of the attacker because of a third formation's position.

Also, charging only the assaulting formation ends up with just as many "totally broken and totally illogical" situations.  Support formations are completely invulnerable even if they are right next to the target.  The defending formation has to ignore them in favor of the assaulting formation.  For example, if IG infantry were supporting an assault against a Kult of Speed, the Warbikes would be unable to counter-charge into CC against the hapless IG even if the infantry were 6cm away and the assaulting formation was 14cm away.

_________________
www.tneva.net

He didn't say "keep the formation loaded".

1 or 2 guardsmen left in a Chimera (or two) in the middle of the formation.  Those won't be allocated hits until there's already pretty deep penetration into the formation.  The chances of them turning into extra casualties is very slim and there can't be more "bonus" casualties than the number you leave loaded, i.e. 1 or 2.

_________________
Neal

The point is you have given no examples from a game.  You've just stated "It always happens and it's HOOOOORRIBLE!" over and over.

And fix: Remove movement restrictions from counter charge(attackers already have all the initiave. Let defenders have SOME choices instead of attacker choosing everything) and remove premeasurement(or add some serious limitation like at the start of activation you are allowed to measure shortest distance between formation and one enemy unit). Hey presto you have infinently less broken and less abusable rules.

_________________
Neal

I'm sure some of the people that played Tau with the assault-reaction 10cm move Jet Pack rule could explain other broken, illogical games to play with an omni-directional response move.

I would love to play a land Speeder army, my god I'd have a field day!


I think you will find its an ogryn in a chimera


How on earth is that possible? A Land Speeder has a 5+ attack. 5 5+ attacks are 1-2 casualties. Thats all. You other formation isn't supporting as they are busy drawing off the defenders. Assuming you have preped the target, have a chaplain and no blastmarkers you are still only looking at 1-2 on the dice roll, even less if the 4-5 guardsmen downed a speeder in response. Pick a better example at least.


Um, it makes perfect sense to keep one guardsman inside a chimera. With the 1/2 firepower rule it doesn't even affect your shooting.

_________________
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

That one loaded chimera might not help here; it makes things a bit harder for the attacker but still "clever placement" would take care of this - just put the real attackers a bit closer to that chimera than the supporters.

However, all the counter measures, point comparing etc. is valid here, I'm just addressing that it is against common sense, feels unfair/abuse, and is "a trick". Having such a rule which "is against common sense" in main rules is something which alienates people from the game. It is a bit like playing that Chess and when you are about to make the winning move, your opponent would tell that "in this case, as rook is closer to king, you are not allowed to do that. Read paragraph 2.4.5 more carefully".

Of course, "mastering the rules" might be the object of higher war gaming skillz. Call me new age board game fan, but I would prefer rules that would not include such features.

In this case I would go even this far:
1. move attacker
2. make counter-charges (optional, always toward attacker formation)
3. main fight (with those within 15cm of each other)
4. if not stalled, support fire. Support fire is done by all who are within 15cm of enemies which are within 15cm of REMAINING own main combatants
5. roll for results if both sides still have forces left. If tied, return to "step 1". For the losing side, all formations that fired in phase 4 gain a blast marker.

(i.e. do not check support fire beforehand, only after casualties and so on)

If you think that 2 would do some wrong things, maybe it could be "toward attacker or if there is closer foe, you may move toward that instead"



Actually I still wonder where that rule comes that if counter-charge moves you to base-to-base contact with another formation, that formation is drawn into same combat.. where is this exactly stated?

There are many criticisms of that and instead of going over them all think why the rule of only getting support fire on 'directly involved' units came about.

Otherwise that one chimera/guard combo means that if someone tries to split up your formation you countercharge into them and bring them into the fight, making them viable targets for all those models who otherwise have no targets.

_________________
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

1.12.3 Make Charge Move [second to last paragraph]
Counter charging units are allowed to counter charge enemy units from any enemy formation, not just the one they were assaulted by. Any enemy formations that are contacted by counter charging units are drawn into the assault, and will fight just as if they had made the assault themselves. Treat them and the original attacking formation as a single formation for all rules purposes for the duration of the assault.

A 2D6 roll is used to resolve a combined assault. If the attacker loses then each formation is broken. If the attacker wins then each formation receives a number of Blast markers equal to the number of units the formation lost in the assault.