Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Nanite

Incoming! Rules Update.

Recommended Posts

It was mentioned in the Rach thread, that there is a rules update/revision coming.

 

What would you like to see?

 

I think the only thing confirmed is a modification to the "Children of the Storm" doctrine.

 

What I wouldn't mind seeing is a clarificaiton to the number of Open Market models a non-indy faction can take. Or possibly limit Open market models to the affliated UCORs?

 

My rationale is that there are too many really effective Open Market models, I think it might be too easy to cover a factions weaknesses.

 

Other complaints I've noticed are that people don't like the way CC works, and that Infantry are too effective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of people are complaining about Close Combat, but in every Battle Report I've read where players have actually used it, it seems that the infantry get in one or two quick kills, then are pretty useless as the battle moves past them and their transports are chewed up. It seems to me that nobody really has a problem with Infantry, its the Soft APC's with 14 DV that get them across the table without taking any damage that's the problem.

 

I think this will get a little bit better once people open their minds and start using some of the vehicles that used to sit in their carrying cases during CAV 1 and using different tactics. Still, some anti-soft models with a Shredder/X value better than 3 wouldn't hurt. The Vanquisher, Ghost and Sabre were designed with the sole purpose of killing soft targets, yet they're outgunned by Infantry teams. ::(:

 

What I would like seen is the rules for Strikes cleaned up a bit. Is LOS required to call a strike? Do Infantry inside an APC have LOS to anything to call Strikes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In regards to what Chrome said about using the stuff that used to sit, I think the Hunter is a real gem. 250 points gets you a high DV model with a +4 mod against hard targets and two FA-45s. Keep that next to your big guys (or recon models) and you've got a model that can either help against CAVs or fend of the soft targets. (Oh yeah, it's got Avenger/3 to help deter those infantry.) Avenger/5 on the Vanquisher is a good thing, and +4 against soft isn't bad, but good lord is it short ranged (though it fits with the other KW weapons).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

for me its the extreme inneffectiveness of indirect play.

 

75% of the models with indirect couldnt hit the ocean if they were standing in it, even with standing still and locking.

 

and even if they do somehow get an enemy to move into their final target area, only about 10% need less than a perfect 10 to do any damage.

 

My suggestion there is that either the RAVs or the amount of piercing or shredding of IFM weapons on "fire support units" go up to match those of their direct fire attacking counterparts. Not all units, just the fire support units. I dont suggest rainsing their TC values as that would affect the fire support direct fire weapons as well. So it will still be tough to hit the spot, but if/when you do, it ought to have more of a bang than a 10-15% chance of damaging the target.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to see people have to take more faction specific models to get the faction bonuses but if that comes to be then I also think that any of the open market models from their old UCORs should count as well.

 

IA's need a bit of a workover. The ability to hit a target point let alone damage something has gone down a little too sharply since 1.5. I've noticed that a lot of fire support units have started not leaving the carrying case. Perhaps a bit higher initial RAV so that it would encourage people to invest in adjustable munitions and see some variance to indirect fire. The down side is that too much change the other way will break it just as fast. This is one that will need some testing to get it down.

 

Infantry in CC are a nightmare but that really isn't a horrible thing. What I can see the problem being is that there is no way to leave CC other than dying or killing your attacker. I think that once the defender has wounded the attacker he should get a shot at breaking B2B.

 

A few more examples to clarify some of the abilities and game mechanics.

 

 

 

Gotta love this game though :wub:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand why people are having trouble with IA. It works very well for me. I usually target lock though and rarely use CFP because of the short range.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I kinda think CFP is so short ranged that its pretty much useless. What the Recon unit has extra in TC, it loses in Range Penalties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at EE's pinned thread, I don't think Shock needs to be completely moved. Things just need to be set up so that infantry can't dismount and then mount in the same activation. Easiest way in my mind would be to alter the text of the mount/dismount action so that regardless of SA, infantry may not perform both in one activation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I don't have a problem with them being able to dismount for free. But the more I think about it, the more rediculous it seems for 12 guys (3 rifle teams) to jump out of an APC, aquire a target, shoot at it, and then run back in the APC, all in 4 seconds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Looking at EE's pinned thread, I don't think Shock needs to be completely moved. Things just need to be set up so that infantry can't dismount and then mount in the same activation. Easiest way in my mind would be to alter the text of the mount/dismount action so that regardless of SA, infantry may not perform both in one activation.

 

Or keep it, and make it cost-prohibitive to abuse it. If people want to pay, say 20 points per DT for the SA, they may be a lot less likely to drop another 80-100 on their Model just for that ability. If they want it, pay a premium. If they change Shock, they also need to make sure they change Airborne as well, which is pretty much the same thing as Shock, just costs a little a more.

 

It's still available, there is some potential for abuse, and then to make use of it, their Infantry will actually start coming close to the cost of some CAV. So go ahead, because you'll end up tying up so many points into that one Model, you're not going to be able to bring swarms of Infantry.

 

Eliminating Shock won't fix the problem when the DV 14, Soft Transport is the bigger problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have two issues (three including CC)...

 

1. return Link SA to the H-M Knight, Centurian (lower the attack value), and the Crusader (again dropping the AV to compensate). The link SA is a good alterntive to high AVs.

 

2. Correct the damn misspelling on my name. :grr:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think my only real complaint is that a player can field a faction army with only one faction-specific model.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

 

Personally, I don't like that there isn't at least some sort of minimum requirement of Faction specific Models or maybe Faction UCOR models, in order to qualify for the Faction Doctrines beyond that single, solitary Unit. Even if it is a minimum of 25% points of the total build to balance the maximum 25% build Independents with Spoils of War are allowed. Just so there is something other than just a single model that says:

"I am Ritterlich."

"I am Rach."

"I am Templar."

 

etc.

 

Otherwise, there is no significant difference other than a factional doctrine between an Independent and Faction Specific task force.

 

I can easily build an Independent Force, and than swap out a single CAV in an attack section, and turn it into any Faction I want, or keep it Independent and call it Spoils of War. Granted, most people won't likely do this, but the fact that it is possible, takes away some of the sense of there being different Factions, if the primary difference can come down to just a single Model.

 

I just don't like that the difference between a Ritterlich force and a Rach force could be my Emperor and their Rhino, and everything else being exactly the same (and yes I know there is a small value discrepancy there, but the point is still the same).

 

It just seems like there should be more to being part of a Faction.

 

Now maybe this could be addressed by moving more of the Models from Open Market into the Factions, or including some sort of Task Force build requirement: 25% of all Models must be Faction specific, 50% of all Models must be Manufactured by your Faction's UCOR, etc. Just some way to put a true stamps of <Faction Name> on a Task Force beyond just a single Model.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...