Incoming! Rules Update.

[Erion]

I certainly understand why they did what they did, but the rules to allow the use of faction abilities should be more restrictive. Playing friendly games, there's nothing to stop you from playing any force as any faction to test drive the abilities, whether you actually have that one model to make it 'legal' or not. But I think that officially, you should have to have something more in your force, for example, than a single 112-point Terran gunship to get access to air superiority.

 

It's also not balanced, point wise. To be a faction-specific Rach force you only need to buy a single 76-point Barracuda. Ritterlich must pay just under twice that (127 points for an Eagle) to gain access to their faction abilities. At the very popular 1500 point level, the Rach only need to spend very slightly more than 5% of their points to gain faction abilities, but the Ritterlich approach 8.5% for the same privelege.

 

By making it a % of your force build (15-25%) instead of a single model, it also scales up nicely so that small forces can be faction-specific because of a single model, but larger forces would need to be composed of more faction-specific models, as you'd expect in larger engagements.

[merlonc]

This would be a very bad idea. Not all factions have adequate numbers or choices of faction specific models. It might be acceptable if instead X % must be from faction UCORS.

[Erion]

How is is less fair to base access to faction abilities on a % of the game size than to base it on a single model which has a low-end buy in difference of as much as 50 points from one faction to the next?

 

In most cases a single super-heavy from each faction fulfills my 20% requirement in a 3000 point game all by itself. All the factions have between 8 and 11 models covering a point range from around 100 to around 650 points. So yes, they're all limited, but those "Limitations" generally include the most desirable models for each faction.

 

All I'm saying is that somebody shouldn't be allowed to spend 2886 points on OEM Rhinos and then buy a single low-cost rach Model to provide them all with close Range Direct Fire Bonuses.

[Sergeant_Crunch]

All I'm saying is that somebody shouldn't be allowed to spend 2886 points on OEM Rhinos and then buy a single low-cost rach Model to provide them all with close Range Direct Fire Bonuses.

Or Infantry, transports, and one 'Cuda with no mercy doctrine.

[Nanite]

I think 20-25% is a good.

[Brushmaster]

I'm not totally fussed about what point value you have to have but when I do (that's when I get all my minis) field my Ritterlich force , I will certainly field a Rhino , Tiger , Panther and a Wolverine . The majority of the rest of my force will be from the UCORS associated with them . I do believe that there should a need for more than one faction model to call a force faction specific but a specific % would be a better choice IMHO .

[von Richtor]

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.

[merlonc]

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

 

I think that faction specific abilities should not be free. Each ability should have a point cost that is stated as a % of the total force size. Then choosing a factions get you access to their faction specific models ad the option of buying a faction specific ability.

 

I personally wil probably never use a faction other than Independent with the option to take 25% faction specific models. But that fits the backstory for my army.

[shakhak]

After playing this weekend here are a few of my suggestions for change.

 

Increase the cost of Smoke Strike and Air Strike(The one that's 2"x12"). Both of these are amazing for 10 and 50 points.

I would gladly pay 25-50 points for smoke strike, 10 is almost free in a game where 5,000 points is common place.

 

Also shock can be annoying. I was the one using it and I think something needs to be adjusted. I think Mount/Dismount needs to be restricted to once per turn. Without shock there is no reason to get out and get back in. So it should only affect models that are upgrades.

Or again, increase it's point cost. 40-60 shouldn't be unheard be hard to swollow for shock and add 20 points to that to keep Airborne in scale with it.

[Sergeant_Crunch]

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

 

I think that faction specific abilities should not be free. Each ability should have a point cost that is stated as a % of the total force size. Then choosing a factions get you access to their faction specific models ad the option of buying a faction specific ability.

How is this different from requiring a certain % of the point value in faction models? And remember, Independent is a faction, so you would have to pay that same percentage. So if everyone is paying the same percentage, why include it?

[tabascojunkie]

I think Indirect Fire needs to be quite a bit more powerful. If you look at the heavy direct fire CAV killers, their numbers imply that they are very good at what they do. This isn't true of the heavy indirect models. Like Stubbdog said earlier, the indirect models couldn't hit the ocean if they were standing in it.

 

Look at the Outlaw for instance. It's an MLRS, the things that are designed to rain death upon the enemy from a long way away. But it only has a RAV of 3 with Shredder/1, giving it at best a RAV of 4, and only against soft targets at that. Compare that to some of the heavy CAVs that have a total RAV of 8 or 9 against the targets they were designed to go after, and the Indirect-designed units seem to fall a bit short of their intended role.

 

And the fact that the Outlaw only has a TC of 2, barely giving it a chance to even hit the target area without drifting.

 

Now this isn't just a rant about the Outlaw because I play Malvernis, it's just that all of the units that are designed with Indirect Fire as they're primary weapon system don't seem to measure up to how well they do their job compared to other model types.

[Erion]

I, too, have found indirect fire to be less than effective, mostly due to an inability to actually hit the target point, but also because anything that actually gets caught in the AOE essentially has a 10% chance of being damaged.

[dewen]

After playing this weekend here are a few of my suggestions for change.

 

Increase the cost of Smoke Strike and Air Strike(The one that's 2"x12"). Both of these are amazing for 10 and 50 points.

I would gladly pay 25-50 points for smoke strike, 10 is almost free in a game where 5,000 points is common place.

Smoke lays down a large area that blocks LoS for 10pts. I agree it needs a point increase or AoE reduction.

 

The Air Strike (no drift) is almost the same area (sq in) as the Artillery which drifts. They both cost the same. I agree with shakhak to increase the cost of the Air Strike or reduce its AoE.

 

Also shock can be annoying. I was the one using it and I think something needs to be adjusted. I think Mount/Dismount needs to be restricted to once per turn. Without shock there is no reason to get out and get back in. So it should only affect models that are upgrades.

Or again, increase it's point cost. 40-60 shouldn't be unheard be hard to swollow for shock and add 20 points to that to keep Airborne in scale with it.

Yes, shock is annoying. Limiting mount/dismount to one per actication would restrict the infantry with Shock from jumping out of a vehicle, doing something annoying like FiST or other Engineering thing, and jumping back in.

[dewen]

I, too, have found indirect fire to be less than effective, mostly due to an inability to actually hit the target point, but also because anything that actually gets caught in the AOE essentially has a 10% chance of being damaged.

Indirect does seem weak. Making a 10+ target roll and then an attack roll vs DV usually doesn't result in much. I don't think it is completely useless but definitely needs a boost to increase effectiveness.

[von Richtor]

Also shock can be annoying....

 

Didn't I hear that they were eliminating the Shock SA?