Tactical Command http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/ |
|
If you could change the RULES of E:a... http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=32500 |
Page 1 of 5 |
Author: | mordoten [ Fri Jul 07, 2017 5:34 am ] |
Post subject: | If you could change the RULES of E:a... |
Hi guys! Just out of curiosity, if there was to be made a major rules (rules, not army lists) overhaul for Epic:Armageddon done what rule changes/clarifications/addons would you like to see? I'm just interested to see what people consider are the "weak links" of the system. Maybe this has been disscussed before? |
Author: | ffoley [ Fri Jul 07, 2017 6:45 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: If you could change the RULES of E:a... |
For me, activation rolling, WE suppression/damage, fearless and counter charging toward nearest enemy. |
Author: | tgjensen [ Fri Jul 07, 2017 6:46 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: If you could change the RULES of E:a... |
Based on my rather limited experience, engagements are skewed too much in firefights' favour compared to CC. I'd maybe introduce a rule that stated that when making an engagement, any movement must be toward the target formation. That way if the enemy formation had already moved into close proximity, you couldn't engage backwards to a safer firefight distance, or move laterally to turn it into a clipping assault. |
Author: | mordoten [ Fri Jul 07, 2017 6:50 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: If you could change the RULES of E:a... |
ffoley wrote: For me, activation rolling, WE suppression/damage, fearless and counter charging toward nearest enemy. Interesting. Would you mind ellaborating on some/all of thoose issues? :-) |
Author: | Pille [ Fri Jul 07, 2017 8:02 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: If you could change the RULES of E:a... |
I agree with tgjensen. It would be nice if CC focused units were more viable. Another thing my group have discussed is ways to make low-activations armies more competitive, but we can't agree on any solutions :p |
Author: | kyussinchains [ Fri Jul 07, 2017 8:13 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: If you could change the RULES of E:a... |
I think generally the rules are sound, I'd like to see them tightened up a bit and have some plainer english to clarify some rules (War engine splitting CC/FF attacks for example, the ever present scout screen vs air assault circular debate, within vs entirely within on dismounts etc) I could not disagree more on the countercharge rules, right now it adds nuance to the game about where you position units, and also how you set up engagements, with the dismount distance, if you could always countercharge towards the engaging enemy it would make it much harder to set up effective support fire and clipping engagements. It's perfectly well rationalised from a real-world perspective too as the ground scale is not linear, 15cm represents ~250m, 30cm is 1kM, when a company/formation is spread over that kind of distance, it would be perfectly understandable for the squads closest to the enemy would refuse to turn their backs on the enemy and run away.... I like the simplistic way war engines are handled personally, with suppression not affecting them until they break In terms of rule changes I'd be interested to see a splitting of the reinforced armour rolls, so you could have it be Reinforced Amour(X) where X is the re-roll value for example a warlord titan would have a 4+ armour save (or maybe even 3+) and reinforced armour (4) so it would behave as it is now, but a leman russ might have a 4+ armour save and reinforced armour (5+) it enables list writers to tweak the units a little more.... it's far from essential of course TL;DR I'd want to clarify most of the 5-min warmup questions into concrete rules interpretations and fiddle about with armour saves ![]() |
Author: | ffoley [ Fri Jul 07, 2017 10:16 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: If you could change the RULES of E:a... |
mordoten wrote: ffoley wrote: For me, activation rolling, WE suppression/damage, fearless and counter charging toward nearest enemy. Interesting. Would you mind ellaborating on some/all of thoose issues? :-) ok - too many games with 2+ activation armies are won and lost on rolling 1s - I don't like the way big WE don't suffer any suppression until BM = DC or any effects of damage - theres too big a difference between fearless and non fearless. - counter charging towards charger mkes more sense I would put the advantage of higher activation count and the disparity between FF and CC as more problematic than any of my 4 initial thoughts |
Author: | kyussinchains [ Fri Jul 07, 2017 11:01 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: If you could change the RULES of E:a... |
ffoley wrote: - counter charging towards charger mkes more sense MikeT wrote: "Whilst third company were currently being assaulted by a large mass of chaos cultists from the west, second squad, deployed on the Company's eastern flank, were unable to move to assist as they were pinned down by another mob of cultists moving on their positions from that direction as well" perfectly rational and realistic explanation, conveniently ignored when it was posted in its original thread.... ![]() |
Author: | Apocolocyntosis [ Fri Jul 07, 2017 11:14 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: If you could change the RULES of E:a... |
Split fearless into two rules. (1: no hackdown, 2: no withdraw/wipe needed) Make landing an aircraft count as moving. Improve mechanics for CC assault vs FF. RA and MW could be tweaked as mentioned above. To add to war engine comment, titan armies where everything can stick a toe into a shrub then claim -1 to hit on all 8DC of their towering frame really annoy me. I wouldn't want to see counter charges changed though. Current rules wording is simple but adds a nice bit of extra depth. |
Author: | ffoley [ Fri Jul 07, 2017 11:40 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: If you could change the RULES of E:a... |
kyussinchains wrote: ffoley wrote: - counter charging towards charger mkes more sense MikeT wrote: "Whilst third company were currently being assaulted by a large mass of chaos cultists from the west, second squad, deployed on the Company's eastern flank, were unable to move to assist as they were pinned down by another mob of cultists moving on their positions from that direction as well" perfectly rational and realistic explanation, conveniently ignored when it was posted in its original thread.... ![]() supposed realism doesn't make it a good rule |
Author: | kyussinchains [ Fri Jul 07, 2017 12:06 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: If you could change the RULES of E:a... |
ffoley wrote: supposed realism doesn't make it a good rule can you expand on how it's a bad rule from a mechanical point of view? like how does it affect the gameplay in a bad way? you said it 'doesnt make sense' so I offered an explantion which perhaps helps make sense of it, adds some realism maybe, but then you imply it's a bad rule.... I'm not trying to dig at anyone here but genuinely interested to know what makes it bad.... it stuck out at me very early on as a great mechanic which stops engagements (the best bit of the game by miles) turning into big sloppy bunfights and adds in some clever tactical options |
Author: | ffoley [ Fri Jul 07, 2017 12:25 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: If you could change the RULES of E:a... |
lets not derail another thread |
Author: | jimmyzimms [ Fri Jul 07, 2017 12:39 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: If you could change the RULES of E:a... |
D10 (or 20). As said above, RA should be a binary value such as RA(4+/5+) where a unary is shorthand for being the same in both rolls. Roll nomenclature probably should have been used for abilities such as Invulnerable Save(x+) or Bulk(N) which would indicate transport sizes. Additional abilities such as Totem (boost to rally nearby formations), Heavy (to allow/restrict barging independent of class), splitting damage from hits away from TK as there's plenty of weapons that could be easier balanced via additional hits but don't deserve MW/TK. Line strafing/intercepting. Period. Full stop. The aerospace rules are for sh!t and off table strategic level assets should be treated differently than units/formation. Of the above, most useful is simply the D10 expansion. I worked the math on the posted document for EA running in EW for those inclined. D6 is simply too small a range, especially in this era of vetted and quality die rollers. |
Author: | MephistonAG [ Fri Jul 07, 2017 1:39 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: If you could change the RULES of E:a... |
A/C to not stay hovering over the battlefield... (I know, don't start another flame war, the last was bad enough). |
Author: | mordoten [ Fri Jul 07, 2017 3:03 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: If you could change the RULES of E:a... |
Keep them coming lads! |
Page 1 of 5 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |