I'm trying to figure out if this is still messing with or if it's something we live with because fixing it is going to be more trouble than it's worth (assuming it can really be improved in a meaningful way at all).

Well, darnit... here's the broken link.

_________________
Neal

what is the third option? Or do we not care about the details for the purpose of this vote, just make it Make it favourable to the attacker somehow - we'll decide on the best way to do that later?

_________________
[url=http://tinyurl.com/bott2015][img]http://i62.tinypic.com/205fcow.jpg[/img][/url]

It seems like the 'favor attacker' option would skew things toward armies that are more specialized such as Eldar (lots of lance & disrupt) and this may have bigger impacts down the road.  It also strikes me as more hassle than its worth given the primary target are mixed formations.  I could easily see this type of thing degenerating into an argument about being just as gamey as the defender allocating hits to his least desirable pieces.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.

This or some close variant (i.e. whatever clarifications are needed):

Leave it as is with the FAQ that the defender must maximize the number of hits (so no soaking hits with LV's) but after that the defender chooses. What go's around comes around after all.

Or you could present it as an alternate method of play and simply leave it there for people to try.  Similar to the alternate air rules that you drafted (which IMO should be included in the document as an optional way to play).

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.

I simply think it should be either defender or attacker allocates, with no subjective middle ground in between.

With the Defender getting the clear margin in this poll, I shall return to the 'selfish' defender allocates style.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Yep.  I agree that all the theoretical problems you list can happen.  In practice, though, it's rare that such things come up.


In any case, it's clear which way the wind is blowing on this poll.  I think it's best dropped.

_________________
Neal

The most 'appropriate' method would work in the majority of cases but would require a huge number of rules to do with really complex cases.

that's the problem, the number of rules required to tie it down.

You could leave it somewhat vague and say the defender has the final word where in cases where the mix of special abilities and targets causes conflicts.

Ignoring all that, it would certainly be an improvement.

As there another way of providing an improvement, be it flawed, but which requires less verbiage in terms of explaining the rule?

What about the 'Bundle some/all special weapons along with MW into the second round of allocation" idea? Not perfect in every case, but again an improvement in most cases.


This rule does assume that units that are vulnerable to special shots are screened by units that are not. And that an upshot is that an uneven distribution of shots can occur such that units futher back get nothing allocated against them when the otherwise would do. But that's the case with the MW second round rule anyway.

_________________
[url=http://tinyurl.com/bott2015][img]http://i62.tinypic.com/205fcow.jpg[/img][/url]

The thing is, in some armies there are units included that are *supposed* to "soak" fire from hitting valuable targets; Grots and Gaunts come directly to mind, and, perhaps, even Lesser Daemons.

I'm still strongly on the side of "defender chooses".

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?

The votes are swinging to remaining 'Defender Allocates' but in reality this isn't happening. The Defender is under immense intimidation and pressure to allocate what the Attacker wants. It's simply 'Attacker Allocates By Proxy'.

so you're saying that bunging in special weapons along with MW reduces their soak ability and therefore their value?

We're ok with MW having a chance to skip over this 'heat sink' but that's because those sink unit types have already been costed to account for that. Putting special weapons along with MW or any of the other solutions propoesed, might be good ideas and address (to a degree) the issue raised, but now we have the problem of the effect this would have on list balance.

I got that about right?

All rules changes must be neutral in terms of list balance...

_________________
[url=http://tinyurl.com/bott2015][img]http://i62.tinypic.com/205fcow.jpg[/img][/url]

WHAT?!  I have *never* seen that occur, not in friendly games nor in tournaments.

I've only experienced joking about "getting better aim" and such when there's a "bad" allocation for the Attacker.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?

I'm not sure I've seen it happen either in rl. If i've allocated less than generously (but perfectly legally) I think most of my opponents have taken it on the chin (sure they didn't like it)

But pressure is, or has been, expressed on this forum. And the question has been raised after all, showing that some are not happy with it.

A fix has already been implemented for a long time in terms of one kind of special weapon (macro-weapons) so an acceptance to address this issue was adopted, albiet a long time ago. Where other kinds of special weapon abilities considered at the time? Where they excluded from the second round for a good reason and it was deemed important that MW should be an exception? Or where other specials effects simply not thought about?

_________________
[url=http://tinyurl.com/bott2015][img]http://i62.tinypic.com/205fcow.jpg[/img][/url]