Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 127 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 9  Next

Consolidating Blood Rage and Red Thirst

 Post subject: Re: Consolidating Blood Rage and Red Thirst
PostPosted: Fri Oct 29, 2010 12:47 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
frogbear wrote:
Evil and Chaos wrote:
You've removed the stipulation that the rule does not apply to transport aircraft. Why?


Because I was concentrating on the first line and forgot the other stipulation. Not really something to make an Inquisition about.

No need to be so defensive. I'm trying to help you write a good rule, not attacking you personally.

Quote:
Quote:
You've removed the stipulation of reaching base contact "in a charge move", potentially introducing ambiguity for rules lawyers.


The formation that is given it should naturally be a CC unit. If not, then I would ask why not. Why force a player to move into BtB?

You've misunderstood me.
The rule says nothing about being forced to move into CC.
It still just says you have to Engage if you're within CC range.

The intent of saying "potentially reach base to base after a charge move" is just for clarity, not to force players to move their units into CC.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Consolidating Blood Rage and Red Thirst
PostPosted: Fri Oct 29, 2010 1:06 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2008 3:22 pm
Posts: 5682
Location: Australia
Evil and Chaos wrote:
No need to be so defensive. I'm trying to help you write a good rule, not attacking you personally.


Well it came across strongly by starting the sentence with "You..". That's all. :P Not an issue.

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats


Last edited by frogbear on Fri Oct 29, 2010 1:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Consolidating Blood Rage and Red Thirst
PostPosted: Fri Oct 29, 2010 1:13 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2008 3:22 pm
Posts: 5682
Location: Australia
Evil and Chaos wrote:
The intent of saying "potentially reach base to base after a charge move" is just for clarity, not to force players to move their units into CC.


Oh. OK. My question: is it necessary? Is it to do with Infiltrators? Just attempting to understand what a rules lawyer can do with the rule.

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Consolidating Blood Rage and Red Thirst
PostPosted: Fri Oct 29, 2010 1:15 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
My concern is not just rules lawyers, but also with providing clarity for newbies. For the sake of a couple of words, I think it'd make things clearer for them.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Consolidating Blood Rage and Red Thirst
PostPosted: Fri Oct 29, 2010 1:19 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2008 3:22 pm
Posts: 5682
Location: Australia
The rule then needs to probably be broken up into 2 sentences. Hmm

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Consolidating Blood Rage and Red Thirst
PostPosted: Fri Oct 29, 2010 1:25 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
3 sentences. You still need the stipulation that each rule doesn't apply to aircraft.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Consolidating Blood Rage and Red Thirst
PostPosted: Fri Oct 29, 2010 1:37 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
Well at leastthe rule with the +1 for Engages can't apply for aircrafts as aircrafts can't carry out an Engage action (unless landed in a previous turn).

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Consolidating Blood Rage and Red Thirst
PostPosted: Fri Oct 29, 2010 1:38 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
BlackLegion wrote:
Well at leastthe rule with the +1 for Engages can't apply for aircrafts as aircrafts can't carry out an Engage action (unless landed in a previous turn).

Again, you need to specify these things for the benefit of newbies.

That's why the notes section of unit datafaxes will often clarify how to use stats that are quite clear to an experienced player (For example, the Land Speeder).

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Consolidating Blood Rage and Red Thirst
PostPosted: Fri Oct 29, 2010 2:21 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2008 3:22 pm
Posts: 5682
Location: Australia
Rug wrote:
Is the THawk situation ok? Still not sure what happen with a THawk ground attack as it can always b2b assault!

Hmm. I never had to deal with that one for the WoE so not sure. I would think that it would not apply, hence part of the stipulation of the third line I seem to keep forgetting about :)

Quote:
Are BA that frenzied/ your face?

Meh. Depends on GW I guess. I think the latest flavour would indicate "yes".

Quote:
What are we going to do for Flesh Tearers?

Ignore them and hope they go away? Seriously. Why a Codex Chapter has such a stupid name is beyond me. I digress...

=============

Interesting note: Lexixcanum has the Red Thirst as Black Rage. Not a bad name for the over-reaching skill as well. Not as good as Blood Rage however.

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Consolidating Blood Rage and Red Thirst
PostPosted: Fri Oct 29, 2010 2:28 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
Quote:
Why a Codex Chapter has such a stupid name is beyond me.

40k is basically made of stupid things.

"World Eaters' indeed.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Consolidating Blood Rage and Red Thirst
PostPosted: Fri Oct 29, 2010 2:33 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2008 3:22 pm
Posts: 5682
Location: Australia
Evil and Chaos wrote:
Quote:
Why a Codex Chapter has such a stupid name is beyond me.

40k is basically made of stupid things.

"World Eaters' indeed.


Yes. At least they are the bad guys now. :) There is no excuse for the Flesh Tearers...

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Consolidating Blood Rage and Red Thirst
PostPosted: Fri Oct 29, 2010 2:41 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
I've been thinking about how to screw with this rule and the more I think about it, the more opportunities present themselves. The rule doesn't say you have to Engage the formation that triggers the penalty/bonus. That means there are a lot of alternative actions to take beyond what is implied and that seriously reduces the vulnerability to the baiting tactics discussed so far.

1) You could take the bonus/avoid the penalty for a close, triggering formation by moving off to FF a different formation farther away.

2) You could pick a target so far away there's no chance of being in range, and use the bonus to move however you like. That gives an option to the player to take the reduced-effect action to avoid the penalty/take the bonus or to attempt to activate normally. That will allow you to do things like grab/block objectives any time a single move is sufficient. That tactical choice partially offsets the penalty side while remaining a definite positive for the bonus side.

3) For a small group of formations with particular traits, the penalty is effectively non-existent and the bonus can almost always be claimed (as long as it's triggered, obviously) - assault formations with Infiltrate. Whether it wants to Engage a target directly or double/support (Engage with 2x move to a support position), it can claim the bonus/avoid the penalty. Only if it really needed to March would the rules cause a negative effect.

===

My point is that when testing, we need to make sure that everyone involved is aware of the manipulations allowed. Not only does it need to be checked for balance, but whether doing stuff like the above feels gamey (whether it's outside the intended feel).

This is especially true for a list like WoE where a substantial portion of the formations have Infiltrate and little or no firepower (Juggers, Slautherfiends, Blood slaughterers) so #3 above is applicable.

===

Naming: I'd use something with a positive connotation for the +1 and a negative connotation for the -1. So, "Bloodthirsty" would be better for the negative, for example.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Consolidating Blood Rage and Red Thirst
PostPosted: Fri Oct 29, 2010 2:44 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
Well all Blood Angels have the Red Thirst but only the Death Company suffers from the Black Rage.

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Consolidating Blood Rage and Red Thirst
PostPosted: Fri Oct 29, 2010 3:00 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2008 3:22 pm
Posts: 5682
Location: Australia
Neal

Just some quick ones:

nealhunt wrote:
1) You could take the bonus/avoid the penalty for a close, triggering formation by moving off to FF a different formation farther away.


I will repeat what I stated earlier: The formation that is given it should naturally be a CC unit. If not, then I would ask why not. Do not give the rule to FF units or formations that benefit greatly from FF and there should be no issue.

Quote:
2) You could pick a target so far away there's no chance of being in range, and use the bonus to move however you like. That gives an option to the player to take the reduced-effect action to avoid the penalty/take the bonus or to attempt to activate normally. That will allow you to do things like grab/block objectives any time a single move is sufficient. That tactical choice partially offsets the penalty side while remaining a definite positive for the bonus side.


Yes, where a single move is sufficient - and how often is this the case? Not often in my experience.

Quote:
3) For a small group of formations with particular traits, the penalty is effectively non-existent and the bonus can almost always be claimed (as long as it's triggered, obviously) - assault formations with Infiltrate. Whether it wants to Engage a target directly or double/support (Engage with 2x move to a support position), it can claim the bonus/avoid the penalty. Only if it really needed to March would the rules cause a negative effect.


As above, for a single move. Yes, I know that you are going to state Infiltrators, so please see below.

Quote:
This is especially true for a list like WoE where a substantial portion of the formations have Infiltrate and little or no firepower (Juggers, Slautherfiends, Blood slaughterers) so #3 above is applicable.


Ok. Now the formations mentioned (you forgot Defilers, Greater Brass Scorpions, and Flesh Hounds) do have Infiltrate and can take advantage of that rule. However I put it back to you in how often do you really expect such units to be used?
- I use the Slaughterfiends quite a lot as I like the idea of them, yet they also have a severe penalty when attempting to mount them to take advantage of that rule.
- Juggers and G.Brass Scorpions I do not expect to see much of.
- Defilers - Maybe, however you take them to a detriment of less Khorne Engines
- Flesh Hounds - when did you last see them used?

So it may appear that a "portion of the formations have Infiltrate and little or no firepower" (although I think you sell Defiler Engines short when the have a 75cm shot), yet keep it all in perspective. They are a large portion in the quick reference guide, but far less visible in a competative force. Have you attempted to make up a force or two to bring such a concern to light?

That is a big part of the problem. We have examples, yet are they realistic?

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: Consolidating Blood Rage and Red Thirst
PostPosted: Fri Oct 29, 2010 5:03 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
frogbear wrote:
nealhunt wrote:
1) You could take the bonus/avoid the penalty for a close, triggering formation by moving off to FF a different formation farther away.


I will repeat what I stated earlier: The formation that is given it should naturally be a CC unit. If not, then I would ask why not. Do not give the rule to FF units or formations that benefit greatly from FF and there should be no issue.

There are so many assumptions wired into this statement that I don't know where to start.

What if the triggering formation is a CC specialist as well?
What if the triggering formation is so large or has so much support that the superior CC doesn't matter?
What if the alternate target is a weak FF formation?
What if there is a lot more support fire on the alternate target?

"Gee, I can assault this Orkeosaurus in CC... or I can go over there and FF against a formation of Boyz..."

Quote:
Yes, where a single move is sufficient - and how often is this the case? Not often in my experience.

I'd say this is a matter of planning your overall attack strategy.

Quote:
you forgot Defilers, Greater Brass Scorpions, and Flesh Hounds

No, I didn't forget them. Defilers and Brass Scorpions have considerable firepower, so it's a lot larger drawback for them. Flesh hounds don't form separate formations.

However I put it back to you in how often do you really expect such units to be used?

Quote:
Have you attempted to make up a force or two to bring such a concern to light?

That is a big part of the problem. We have examples, yet are they realistic?

Yeah. That's why I flagged these as "we need to be sure this is tested" and not 'ZOMG, FROGBEERZ LSIT IS BROAKEN!!!!!'

As far your defense of the units, if the units aren't being taken in play, then that's a problem with the internal balance of list. It doesn't have anything to do with determining whether the rule creates the desired effect in game.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 127 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 9  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 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