Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
spiritual_exorcist

Facing, Do we really need it?

Recommended Posts

I'll just shake my head when someone plunks 3 grunts in my front and sends their Warlord to the rear for the +1 bonus and my inability to defensive strike them. Gee Duke Gerard and General Matisse are just brave warriors running behind me all the time ::D:.

That's the kind of thing that annoys the crap out of me. Yes, it's within the rules, but IMO, it ruins the flavor of the game. If someone in one of my game group's was doing that repeatedly, they would be getting such a ration of crap for doing so.

 

 

Maybe what I really dislike is the above kind of example, i don't mind the idea of backstab/x models exploiting rear facings at all. Perhaps my initial suggestion should have related to removing the +1 rear facing bonus and making a rear attack bonus the exclusive domain of Backstab models.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mostly the faceing rules work, but i'd also like to see that corners are still valid. Though now that i think about it, i've never had the situation were i couldn't attack back durring my turn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Normally, if I have a model getting attacked in the rear, it is usually because they are getting swarmed by a whole bunch of grunts. Which usually spells doom for my model. Which means a dead model for WB. ::(:

 

I too dislike the corner to corner wording. But, it so rarely comes up here in Tulsa that I had almost forgotten about it...

 

Wild Bill :blues:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with the general consensus - corner facing rules need to go, but rear facing adds a layer of strategy and should remain.

 

I'm vehemently opposed to anything that removes Backstab/x from the game, as I think it's one of the coolest things in Warlord! Something inside of me really likes the daring soul who would enter a pitched battle in leather armor and carrying a dagger. He's either a fool or a true professional!

 

And on a more technical note, I think that Backstab/x adds another method of attack. Sure it's just like melee, but it has enough of a bonus to it that it counts as different for me. You can use regular melee, ranged, or magic, or you can use your rogue to get a better chance of hitting. Gives you options for your high DV targets besides try to go the magic route or try to pile grunts onto it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll just chime in to remind everyone how the corner thing works. Since B2B is defined by the attacker, if an attacker comes into B2B with your model's corner, you are considered to be in B2B with that model on that model's turn, so you do get your defensive swings. Then, on your turn, you are not considered to be in B2B with the enemy model, and you can freely move away without needing to roll to break B2B. Works great if your model has first strike, since now you only need to move a quarter inch and you get your first strike. ::):

 

From Reapergames FAQ:

Q) If an attacking Model positions itself with its flat edge to a corner of the defending models base it appears the defending Model is unable to make defensive strikes, is this correct?

 

A) "valid front side" on page 62's Defensive Strike step is legacy text from beta and should be removed. 'Base-to-Base Contact' is defined by the attacker. The inability to "count the corners" is only a consideration when attacking and only when attacking. Defenders may strike back against any corner or any non rear side. Therefore the burden is on the attacker to establish the initial contact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That does make me feel a little better, I knew you got your defensive strikes but I didn't know you were not technically in BtB and could move away freely, I think I'd still rather see the whole thing scarped and anything but corner on corner BtB contact be legal.

 

As it stands it feels like a loophole to be exploited, not a proper rule.

 

I appreciate the fact that this has been addressed at least. Thanks Gus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mostly the faceing rules work, but i'd also like to see that corners are still valid. Though now that i think about it, i've never had the situation were i couldn't attack back durring my turn.

That's because we don't use it when we could . :rolleyes: Play friendly . ::D:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which is why i love you guys at the club. :wub: You know I'll try exploiting any rule once for the fun of it or at least quire what whould happen if I tried and you all forgive me for it. But even if I had still remebered this rulling i wouldn't. there's no advantage to it. If i base a model that i don't want attack it's because i want to hold you (and survive), which you can't do with the corners, i wouldn't want to provoke defencive strikes either. And if you can't make the distance to get even a few millimetres of flat overlapping to say the charge is making it, you'd be pushing it further than i would to claim the flat/corner is making it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I am not a Warlord player, sorry but finding Reaper products in the UK is hard and the game has never quite captured my imagination, probably not helped by the lack of visible product over here. However that said I think facing is important both for CC and shooting which hasn't been mentioned here, I assume you can only shoot at whatever you are facing? However I would grant a free turn to anyone who is charged if they are not already in contact with another enemy. Turning on the spot take damn all time and you would in a skirmish try and be aware of what is behind you. Sure this allows the "brave" warlord to send a minion to pin the fellow and then wonder round behind him and attack. Or as I would do it pin with the Warlord and send the minion round the back. Certain special abilities could then allow a model to sneak up and engage a foe from behind without him getting his free turn (invisibility spells whatever).

 

However I don't play so my opinion really counts for nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll just shake my head when someone plunks 3 grunts in my front and sends their Warlord to the rear for the +1 bonus and my inability to defensive strike them. Gee Duke Gerard and General Matisse are just brave warriors running behind me all the time ::D:.

That's the kind of thing that annoys the crap out of me. Yes, it's within the rules, but IMO, it ruins the flavor of the game. If someone in one of my game group's was doing that repeatedly, they would be getting such a ration of crap for doing so.

 

Ruins the flavor? How so? This is not a Hollywood movie where the good guys play fair, it's a war game. Your opponent is taking advantage of a situation that you allowed. And it also means you can use that to your advantage. If he tends to do this often, bait him to overextend that WL from his troops. This can put that WL in a vulnerable position, such as LOS for ranged and magic attacks and swarm him with your troops later. You lose a grunt, or maybe an elite for bait (and the elite may take something with him) and you take out a WL. Seems like a great chess move to me (and I'm terrible at chess <_< ).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Completely within the rules of the game, I agree. But it isn't something I will ever consciously go out of my way to do. Would I care if you did it, not really; if that make the game enjoyable for you no problem. I don't get any joy out of niggling that +1 rear bonus when I'm fighting my opponent when using anything but a Backstab model, don't ask me why, I just don't. If I was to play competitively and something was at stake I might put that aside, but in friendly games I'm not looking to exploit everything to win, I'm simply looking to have fun and enjoy my time.

 

This might not be a Hollywood movie, but it is a heck of a lot closer to Hollywood than reality. That being said, I'm not dumb enough just to let my rear be exploited over and over (thats what she said ::D: ).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not something I actively pursue I must say but if the chance is there to get that +1 I take it. Every time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In a related area, a friend, when he comes into town, and I get together to play miniature spaceship combat games, first it was Full Thrust and now it's Starmada. But I've gotten tired of facing his WW2 ships mounted with "warp nacelles" and their 240 degree arc-of-fire weapons. I've designed all sorts of ships based on all the scifi miniatures I have (i.e., Star Trek, Star Wars, B5) and finally, out of frustration to the lack of maneuvering that is necessary, am ready to design "flying saucers" with 360 degree weapons and use poker chips to represent them. But I haven't because that does not seem like it would be much fun.

 

I've actually had an amazing amount of fun with WWI/WWII naval combat games in which manuevering is an important part of the game. Starmada isn't really set up to accomodate that style of play though - although its a good game for its intended purpose. Let me know if you want to try some wet navy stuff!

 

BACK ON TOPIC. . .

 

Yes, facing is necessary. The corners issue is a bit awkward, I wouldn't mind seeing that cleaned up. But I *LOVE* the fact that there are good "assassin" characters in the game. I think the facing rules for Backstab are an important part of that from a rules standpoint, but also from a flavor standpoint which is essential. Rear facings definitely need to stay in the game!

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...