Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 3 of 3
  [ 44 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

Bad experimental rule?
Grimshawl
 Post subject: Bad experimental rule?
PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 5:59 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2004 7:11 pm
Posts: 208
Location: Newark Ohio
This change sounds like rubish to me as well, it takes away from the game as far as I can see. What percieved benifit does this change make to the game? And I'm also forced to wonder about the distinct lessening of effectiveness of Maco weapons and TK weapons? and therefore by default most WEs, most especially the titans, this rule makes Titans more survivable and simultaneously lessens their effective fire power, now if the point is to encourage titans to park their buts on objectives and instead of using any other tactics with them then I guess this rule change might have a point, otherwise it definitly seems like a step in the wrong direction.




_________________
who are we to bring down the stars
http://lostandfoundohio
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
dptdexys
 Post subject: Bad experimental rule?
PostPosted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 6:42 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 11:39 pm
Posts: 1974
Location: South Yorkshire
From reading through the old forum posts about the experimental to hit rule it was brought in for a few reasons.

Firstly to have one rule for applying hits in all situations (Ranged fire and assaults) and not to have similar situations having alternate rulesets and confusing gamers (along the lines of the cover to-hit modifiers in shooting and FFs etc. that we get every couple of months).

Secondly there was a call to allow using screening units to have some effect in the game(I think this may be where allowing defenders to allocate hits come into play,to try to represent screening units protecting the more expensive units).

There was also some worrying about MW sniping but not sure how this would work,all I could think of was maybe gamers were targeting formations with normal shots and stopping when they had enough hits to get to an important character and then using a MW so they would take the MW hit on said character (similar to the aircraft sniping debate we had not long ago).At the time there was the introduction of the playtest lists with mixed weaponry formations.

I have posted earlier in this thread stating our group uses these rules for nearly all games and even with grots and shields taking the main hits we don't have a problem with this as it is the same for both sides.We find it makes you think more about targeting formations etc. (especially the titans/gargants if you want to make the most of your MW/TKs).
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Evil and Chaos
 Post subject: Bad experimental rule?
PostPosted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 6:47 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
it is the same for both sides.


Sure, but it's still really gamey, and I severely dislike it.


I hope Glane has the chance to check this thread out at some point... opinion seems quite distinctly split.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
nealhunt
 Post subject: Bad experimental rule?
PostPosted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 11:11 am 
Purestrain
Purestrain

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA

(dptdexys @ Feb. 10 2007,17:42)
QUOTE
There was also some worrying about MW sniping but not sure how this would work,all I could think of was maybe gamers were targeting formations with normal shots and stopping when they had enough hits to get to an important character and then using a MW so they would take the MW hit on said character (similar to the aircraft sniping debate we had not long ago).

This was happening.

There is a reference somewhere in the rules to the attacker determining the allocation, though I can't recall where off the top of my head.  Obviously, that leads to the flip side of the "always on the weakest" problem, turning all MW attacks into semi-snipers as the attacker allocates them in the order which hits the most valuable target.

_________________
Neal
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Evil and Chaos
 Post subject: Bad experimental rule?
PostPosted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 12:14 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire

(nealhunt @ Feb. 12 2007,10:11)
QUOTE

(dptdexys @ Feb. 10 2007,17:42)
QUOTE
There was also some worrying about MW sniping but not sure how this would work,all I could think of was maybe gamers were targeting formations with normal shots and stopping when they had enough hits to get to an important character and then using a MW so they would take the MW hit on said character (similar to the aircraft sniping debate we had not long ago).

This was happening.

There is a reference somewhere in the rules to the attacker determining the allocation, though I can't recall where off the top of my head.  Obviously, that leads to the flip side of the "always on the weakest" problem, turning all MW attacks into semi-snipers as the attacker allocates them in the order which hits the most valuable target.

Then it should be completely involuntary IMHO. The MW hits should land wherever the rules say they should. Noone should know in advance of firing where the MW shots will hit.

This proposed mechanic takes the concept of 'fog of war', and then spits on it. :)

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
nealhunt
 Post subject: Bad experimental rule?
PostPosted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 4:10 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA

(Evil and Chaos @ Feb. 12 2007,11:14)
QUOTE
Noone should know in advance of firing where the MW shots will hit.

This proposed mechanic takes the concept of 'fog of war', and then spits on it. :)

You mean like people always maintaining perfect fire discipline and never accidentally firing the TK weapons before the shields are down?   :devil:

_________________
Neal
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Evil and Chaos
 Post subject: Bad experimental rule?
PostPosted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 4:25 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire

(nealhunt @ Feb. 12 2007,15:10)
QUOTE

(Evil and Chaos @ Feb. 12 2007,11:14)
QUOTE
Noone should know in advance of firing where the MW shots will hit.

This proposed mechanic takes the concept of 'fog of war', and then spits on it. :)

You mean like people always maintaining perfect fire discipline and never accidentally firing the TK weapons before the shields are down?   :devil:

No I mean that you don't know whether you'll apply enough normal hits to bring down the shield before the TK goes in (The rules decide where the TK hit comes) rather than *always* knowing that the TK hit will be the first shot in, or *always* knowing that the TK hit will hit a stand of grotz, rather than perhaps penetrating deeper into the formation if the outer fringe is successfully destroyed by AP/AT/MW hits.

Hit allocation should not be voluntary, because it's gamey. That's what I mean.

You've said yourself that other mechanisms can be easily found to deal with the problems this rule change was supposed to address, without having to have the knock-on effect of introducing a massive element of 'gameyness' into the hit allocation phase.


If Titans need some specific rule to maintain the fog of war effect because MW/TK needs to be downgraded then so be it... but don't do it by allowing the defending player to choose the order of allocation, make the hit order explicit in the rules (As it is now, of course).




_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
nealhunt
 Post subject: Bad experimental rule?
PostPosted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 4:46 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
That was supposed to be funny - teasing rather than a serious jab...

_________________
Neal
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Evil and Chaos
 Post subject: Bad experimental rule?
PostPosted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 4:47 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
Sorry, the little devil icon should have tipped me off there. :D

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
nealhunt
 Post subject: Bad experimental rule?
PostPosted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 5:02 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
Oh, that's okay.  Sometimes I leave the faucet on and all TEH FUNNAY runs out...

_________________
Neal
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
tneva82
 Post subject: Bad experimental rule?
PostPosted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 12:05 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 12:17 pm
Posts: 606
Well. There's always good thing in this: If this totally RIDICULOUS rule comes through rule review I can always just ignore it. Screw stupid rule changes. I'll just keep using the superior version...

_________________
www.tneva.net
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Evil and Chaos
 Post subject: Bad experimental rule?
PostPosted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 12:41 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
My gaming group will most likely ignore it too.

I've tried to tell them we're supposed to be testing it, but the change is universally disliked.


Don't do it dude. :)

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Markconz
 Post subject: Bad experimental rule?
PostPosted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 12:49 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: New Zealand
My opponents here tend to react with outrage to this suggestion as E&C and tneva do.  Thus we haven't used it (I dislike it too, but perhaps not as vehemently). Maybe it is worth a poll/reconsideration if so many people are kicking up a fuss?

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
nealhunt
 Post subject: Bad experimental rule?
PostPosted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 3:34 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
I would urge you to post on the SG boards and/or email Greg Lane directly.

_________________
Neal
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
  Print view Previous topic | Next topic 
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 3 of 3
  [ 44 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  


Powered by phpBB ® Forum Software © phpBB Group
CoDFaction Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net