von Richtor Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shakhak Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 Also shock can be annoying.... Didn't I hear that they were eliminating the Shock SA? EE mentioned that it might be a change in the future. It's not set in stone as far as I know, just kind of a heads up that it's being evaluated. Personally I think the upgrade adds alot to the game, it just isn't pointed correctly. If you want your infantry to haul butt in a flying transport with out rageous armor, that's cool. If you want to do that and be able to dive in and out of it at any time you want... Pay the price... which I think should be more than 20 points. Edit: Here is where you heard it from http://www.reapermini.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=25699 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papabees Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 I think the first step for shock is to make it a one trick pony. i.e. mount or dismount in an activation not both. Eliminating it or upping the cost seems premature. The other rule I think needs addressed is that gunships never ever block LOS. The fact that they do for other gunships breaks the Golden Rule. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoneLord Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 It would make sense to me if the mount/dismount action was made a non-repeatable action. And if they actually were grouped together, since they are written that way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storminator Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 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? The only reasonable thing to do is restrict it by weight. You need to bring 5 grams of faction models for every 1000 points to get the Doctrine. Nothing else makes sense! PS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shakhak Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 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? The only reasonable thing to do is restrict it by weight. You need to bring 5 grams of faction models for every 1000 points to get the Doctrine. Nothing else makes sense! PS N-Scale models are broken! Fix them Reaper! :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stubbdog Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 Even if you make mount/dismount a non repeatable action, or change shock to only count towards one of them, really doesnt negate that "problem". Eaxample: transport hauls butt Infantry use an action to dismount Infantry does a single action from fire, close combat, call fist, repair, etc... Infantry use the shock SA to get a free single mount or dismount to get back on the boat for free. So, the only affect on the infantry is that they could only do one action when they get off the boat, instead of two, but they could still do an action and get back on the boat... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shakhak Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 Even if you make mount/dismount a non repeatable action, or change shock to only count towards one of them, really doesnt negate that "problem". Eaxample: transport hauls butt Infantry use an action to dismount Infantry does a single action from fire, close combat, call fist, repair, etc... Infantry use the shock SA to get a free single mount or dismount to get back on the boat for free. So, the only affect on the infantry is that they could only do one action when they get off the boat, instead of two, but they could still do an action and get back on the boat... I was thinking that making mount/dismount non-repeatable would mean that you can only get in or out once. Meaning that you get out, as a free action. You then have your move and combat actions left. No matter what you do after you get out, you can't get back in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storminator Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 N-Scale models are broken! Fix them Reaper! :P No, no! It's the non-N-scale that are nerfed! Reaper's just addressing that before unveilling the new rule! PS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erion Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 Changing mount/dismount to a single, non-repeatable action fixes the problem with shock without having to do anything but move some rows around on the list of actions. Besides, increasing the point costs of upgrades does not do anything for Reaper's primary business model, which is selling metal. Honestly, I think they should have made the formula (whatever the heck the current formula is) /10 and all the griping about model costs would be gone. A 1500 point game would be huge! And the N-scale model errata is incomplete. There are still lots of questions as to what models will be receiving upgrades. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant_Crunch Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 Actually, like I said several pages back, if you rewrite the Mount/Dismount action so that an infantry stand during its turn may only mount or dismount, not both, would take care of the issue. It can still be a free action by taking the shock doctrine, but you will either get out of or get into the transport that activation for free. This leaves the infantry out and vulnerable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dewen Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 Also shock can be annoying.... Didn't I hear that they were eliminating the Shock SA? I wouldn't want to see it elimintated but limited so that Mount/Dismount is non-repeatable. I think it is a cool ability. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrome Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 transport hauls buttInfantry use an action to dismount Infantry does a single action from fire, close combat, call fist, repair, etc... Infantry use the shock SA to get a free single mount or dismount to get back on the boat for free. I can see infantry Dismounting an APC, performing a Ranged Attack and Mounting the APC in the same turn as being a problem. However if all anyone is really concerned about is Close Combat - and at this time is all that's been complained about - this does solve the problem. Actually, there shouldn't be much of a problem anyways if you follow the rules. Its almost humanly impossible to end an APC's movement in the exact location where the Infantry could dismount and be in B2B contact with both the APC and the Model they want to engage in CC. So after the Free Dismount, the Infantry would have to spend their first Action to move into B2B with the enemy Model and their second Action to perform CC, which leaves them with no Actions left to move back to the APC and mount up. The only exception to this is if the APC had another Action left it could move into B2B with the Infantry I suppose, but it would again be pretty improvable that the APC could get into B2B with all of the Infantry models, some Infantry would still be left out to dry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stubbdog Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 Its almost humanly impossible to end an APC's movement in the exact location where the Infantry could dismount and be in B2B contact with both the APC and the Model they want to engage in CC actually, its only very hard to do if you are trying to get 3 infantry stands into b2b. Otherwise, its quite simple. Fly the bird all the way into tabletop b2b and eject the infantry to either side. You are assuming that the bird is gonna try and stop exactly the width of a base away from the target model and then try to squeeze the infantry in there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrome Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 I stand corrected! And you had it right about how I was picturing it, b/c I was thinking of the APC carrying 3 minis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.