Jump to content

von Richtor

Members
  • Content Count

    74
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by von Richtor


  1. "Does an IA that lands off of the table miss or might it hit if something is within it's AoE?" This is one of those things that I wouldn't care about either way, all else being equal as long as it was consistent. The problem here is that all else is not equal. Ruling that the IA automatically misses in this instance has brought up another problem, namely, an opponent who skirts the table edge in order to make IA's less effective.

     

    Personally, (though I'd do it myself) I feel that this is a more unrealistic, heinous, and "cheese weasely", situation than either of the two choices which precipitated it. While I have heard many creative solutions to the newly created problem such as "yell at them and never play with them again", "arrange the terrain so that the tactic is less productive". and "place your minefields around the table edge". It occurs to me that these "solutions" are often highly arbitrary and ultimately, create even more problems. Isn't the easiest solution to simply rule that the IA hits and anything within it's AoE is a potential target? I think so.


  2. I am still dead set against requiring a certain % of faction specific models....

     

    Well, I am too and this is what has me torn. I do agree with the general sentiment that a faction specific TF should contain more than one faction specific model but it's one of those rare occassions where I'd rather not see it handled by a hard and fast rule. This is why I feel that offering some incentive to purchase faction specific models is the way to go here. The best (only?) way I can come up with is to simply make them a better "bang for the buck". Simultaneously, I don't think that these models (as they exist now) are balanced with this in mind which is why I am toying with the idea of allowing my players to design their own faction specific models. (Understand that, per my earlier post, the Ritterlich Panther doesn't get redesigned before every battle. This happens only once, at some campaign level cost, a new data card is made up, and there it is until and unless a new design cost is paid.) But it does allow a player to plug holes in his TF as they crop up.


  3. What I am thinking about doing is eliminating all Faction specific models (where an Open Market model exists anyway) and allowing my players a free 10% worth of upgrades to all of their Factional UCOR's models, In effect, they would be creating their own Faction specific models that are a little better than their Open Market equivalents but cost no more. So, if you buy all UCOR specific models and can fit your +10% in to each perfectly, you will show up with a Task Force worth 10% more than the point value of the game.

     

    Now, I intend to run a campaign style game and it's easier for me to do this as I am the only person in the group who yet has any models and they'll learn the game that I teach them. <_<


  4. I play it like Spartan6 stated. off the table is off the table.

     

    Otherwise you are making an exception for one thing but restricting everything else. Using that logic I should be able to drive off the table by an inch or two to get around something or get a better firing position etc.......

     

     

    Exactly. "off the table" means "off the table". If your artillery can hit me from "off the table" why can't I fire my artillery back at yours??? It just opens a can of worms that isn't worth it.

     

    Oh, and if I play someone that runs along the table edge for the purpose of trying to avoid indirect fire.. I'll never play you again AND make sure EVERYONE knows you're one of those kinds of players. It's one thing to be near the table edge to avoid terrain or obstacles but if you're using the table edge as "cover" it will be pretty obvious.

     

    It's like the "sandbag" tactic at tourneys. In a tournament with timed rounds and damage inflicted counts toward your score, I've seen players rush forward on the first turn and try and deal a big amount of damage and then stall and hide for the rest of the time limit in order to try and prevent their opponent from inflicting damage. Those are the people that need dealt with out behind the building. It's unsportsmanlike and cowardly.

     

    I find the application of the word "cowardly" to a game an interesting choice and let me save you (Spartan) the trouble, I AM THAT KIND OF PLAYER. First, of course I'll hug the table edge under this ruling. The table edge is an "effect" to keep us in close enough proximity to each other to fight but that's all you'll get for guarantees from me there. I have no problem with your "sandbagging" tactic either and, if hugging a table edge gets me further benefits, count on my doing that as well. A good rules set will keep arbitrary rulings ("delay of game, hugging the table's edge") down to a minimum and, to this end, allowing the IA to hit it's target just seems like a "no brainer".

     

    Wargames (like war itself) are about victory conditions that don't necessarily coincide with your plan of standing toe-to-toe and duking it out until somebody retreats or somebody dies. And before I'd allow anybody's whining and/or threats to dictate the way I play against them, I'd back away from the table and allow him to activate my sections as well as his own.

     

    In summary, I say up front, "teach me the rules and I'll show you how the game is played."

     

    Edit: I don't believe in edits except to correct spelling and/or grammatical errors so I did not actually edit this. In hindsight though, I realized that it probably came off much harsher than was warrented or intended and I wanted to apologize for that. :blush:


  5. I still fail to understand why people have a problem with that rule. And nobody has ever given a reason as to why its actually a bad rule. Its written the way it is for good reason, so why should Reaper change it?

     

    I briefly kicked around the idea that a given Faction not be allowed to purchase any Open Market varients from their own UCORS. e.g. A Ritterlich player using a Rhino or Panther must purchase the Faction specific versions of these models and not the OEM versions. The problem there is that Factions become more of a limiting factor than a boon and your decision quickly becomes, "which Faction do I not want to play". Of course, if they were the same point value....


  6. Yeah, it needs some extra umph.

     

    They're conscripted, which means that they shouldn't be as effective as a regular Rifle Team. Maybe they could get their own card - the Conscripted Rifle Team. Lower their Exp, CCV and DV to get them down around 50 points.

     

    Then change the rule for them to something like for every 2000 points in your Task Force, you get a bonus Specialist Section consisting of 4 Conscripted Rifle Teams. This section does not count towards your Task Force size. The only Task Force Upgrades that Conscripted Rifle Teams may use is the Infantry, Weapon Upgrade.

     

    What if for every Infantry (not Mech. Infantry) Section you simply gave them 4 stands bringing the minimum section to a maximum section for free with no upgrades allowed? The Malvie player utilizing this Faction Doctrine will still have to provide transports in a secondary Section at normal cost unless he wants them walking. Just a thought.


  7. The Furies were one of the larger cold-war era Merc Units. They were also the first major merc unit to have to disband after the war began due to the economic and sociological difficulties of running a Merc unit in the present state of the galaxy. You can read about them in the Mercs section of the rulebook.

     

    Thanks Chrome.

     

    As regards the main thread here....I actually like the "B-S" paint scheme too but would prefer a green metallic to their blue. Of course, Reaper's green metallic paint looks blue to me anyway so I'm back to my burnt orange camo scheme.


  8. I know I as well cannot wait until the models of the Jackal and Kracken are out and all the vehicles in the glorious empire of the Rach are available to create fear in the hearts of the enemies of the the empire..... :devil:

     

    Wait. You guys have an "Empire"? Who let the Rach have an Empire?

    (It must be one of those Holy Roman type Empires) :rolleyes:


  9. ....but at around 2000 points it's difficult to take rocks, papers, and scissors. It can be done, but you'll end up with mediocre to poor performance in all three.

     

    You beat me to it! :angry:

     

    I was about to say, "CAV is a game of Paper, rock, scissors and they're 1,500 points each." :lol:


  10. Increased Transport Capacity

    Availability: Models with Transport/X SA

    Point Cost: 10 pts

    Effect: A Model's Transport capacity is increased by 1 space and the Model's Mov is reduced by 2.

    It doesn't list a maximum like the other /# SA's, so I'd guess you could only buy it one time.

     

    :lol: Okay, I figured that, since in addition to the 10 points, I was giving up 2" of movement, I could buy it as many times as I liked. The rationale of course is that the movement reduction provides its own limitation. Having never actually played around with it, I can say that I have neither a preference nor an opinion though.


  11. I posed this question in a different thread but, sans anything "official" to dispute it, I agree with Sgt. Crunch here.

     

    MClass "air" units move through or around (not over) terrain just as any other model. "Jump" infantry has the option of being considered MClass "air" at the beginning of it's activation. That's how I would rule it.


  12. The B2B rule specifically states that Gunships are never considered to be in B2B contact. Nothing about movement types....

     

    Okay, I have my rules now (look out! the lawyer is armed!) pg. 80 of the .pdf states that Gunships are never considered to be in B2B contact because they "do not operate on the same vertical level as ground Models...." It is no great leap of logic to extend this rule to all MClass Air units then so I think I would add a sentence specifically excluding Jump Infantry from this rule if that is, in fact, the intent.

     

    I also have a question regarding MClass Air units. Namely, can I forego the cover bonus (and LoS penalties) of say, the woods terrain type by "flying" over, rather than through or around them? Again, I doubt that is the intent but.... :devil:

     

    As an aside, the Badger and Hedgehog data cards still show the "Avenger" SA.


  13. Now if theres a section in the book that says otherwise, please let us know.

     

    My understanding was that Gunships could not conduct close combat because their movement type was "air". That could very well be a misunderstanding on my part but I do not have the rules handy here. I will look again tonight.


  14. ....So let's say you've got a transport/2 gunship with a Mov of 17. It is transporting an Armored Rifle Team with the Shock and Jump Pack upgrades. The transport can move up to 34 inches, the infantry dismount for free, then charge 7 inches (Mov 3 + 2 from jump pack + 2 inch straight line movement from the infantry charge rule) into b2b and proceed with close combat.

     

    Except that infantry with the "Jump" SA cannot get involved in close combat because their movement type changes to "Air". :down:

     

    (I'm pretty sure that this wasn't the intent but it is the rule.) :lol:


  15. ....the response I have been given from Reaper has been if its not in the text then its not in the text and dont assume it (like with the Templar docterine where you would assume that if you can take less units in a section then it should reduce the number of required items inside that section as well but Reaper responded otherwise).

     

    Actually Stubbdog, I responded otherwise. "Officially" I think the jury is still out on this one. :mellow:


  16. That doesn't make a lot of sense to me Sarge.

     

    I can fire 4 inches INTO light woods with only a cover penalty, but I can't fire THROUGH 2 inches of light woods to the other side because it blocks LOS. :blink:

     

    I'd treat the width of the woods the same, irregardless of firing into, or through, and provide the same penalty.

     

    Chrome's, "You're supposed to use seperate trees now" argument aside, if you don't, it is important to know that it is a common wargaming convention that you can't trace LoS through two wood's edges. Of course, this is primarily for human sighting conditions where going from sunlit, through shadowed, and back into sunlit is all but impossible for our eyes. Still, it is a convention that my group is used to so one I will be adopting for templated forests. Beyond that, I think I'll go for a -1/-2 per inch to a maximum of -"X" at which point LoS is considered blocked.

×
×
  • Create New...