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

Minefield as a classification
Ginger
 Post subject: Minefield as a classification
PostPosted: Thu Apr 17, 2008 7:41 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5483
Location: London, UK

(Hena @ Apr. 17 2008,19:15)
QUOTE

(Ginger @ Apr. 17 2008,21:12)
QUOTE
I am not quite certain where you are going here. How can the unit be moved if it has no activations? the intention as I see it is to provide a term to cover inanimate objects that do not move - if you need to allow it movement, then it is a normal unit isn't it?

Well the spores would most likely need some move capability. That's why it was we talked about moving in the end phase x cm.

As I said in the Nid thread, I would strongly advise not doing this, both because of the additional complexity which is unnessecary IMO, and because of the minimal impact of doing this on the game as a whole. I might add that it will raise a whole series of problems that will need further explanations.

However if you really feel you must, then add a note to the Synapse unit to describe how and when it can move spores.

Personally I think you should  leave the spores described as "STATIC", possibly with a unit note describing how they are moved randomly in the end phase - and even here there will be problems; what happens if the random movement puts the spores into contact with enemy units etc.




_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
BlackLegion
 Post subject: Minefield as a classification
PostPosted: Sat Apr 19, 2008 5:09 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 12:13 am
Posts: 8711
Location: Leipzig, Germany, Europe, Sol III, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Universe
Static Defence would be an appropiate term.

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Soren
 Post subject: Minefield as a classification
PostPosted: Sat Apr 19, 2008 7:48 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 9:42 am
Posts: 694
Location: Austria
you can also make Sentries as an terrain feature. Has a certain effect as all features. (enlighten for sentries for example :;): ) and will be placed after the terrain is placed (which makes sense for sentries and other stuff in this category)

Would keep things much easier (I fear this whole thing gets into categories too complex to handle, players want to keep things simple, everyone understands terrain feature placed 15cm around an objective in his side of the table)

For sure there is no need for a new class of units, this can be handled much easier.

as always only my 0,000002 cent

Soren




_________________
Attrition is the proof of absence of Strategy
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Ginger
 Post subject: Minefield as a classification
PostPosted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 11:47 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5483
Location: London, UK
While I understand what Rug and Soren are presenting, I would suggest that there are several important differences between a true Minefield, a formation with 0cm Movement and the unit definition presented here.

What Hena needs for the Tyranids (and is also needed for the Tau) is a unit that can be seen and which has no activation. Also, the enemy needs to be able to interact with the unit and does not need specialist skills of equipment to detect and disarm it. This is a completely different set of game parameters from either a hidden mine or a 0cm movement formation. It also involves the normal ZoC rules rather than taking a random chance of damage if moving through the terrain.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Soren
 Post subject: Minefield as a classification
PostPosted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 9:42 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 9:42 am
Posts: 694
Location: Austria
Totally agree with rug.

TAU can set up one sentry model and say: All units within 30?cm of a senty turret TERRAIN FEATURE :;): count as marked. So we get rid of this ridiculous sentry tactics because they are no units any more. (They can even be deployed in front of enemy units in the enemy half of the table now. And this really should be a no go)

And we can use the same rules as for siegemasters to set up the towers. (which expand the marker range further and only allow defensive use, which makes really sense imho)

And further I do not see a reason to do it the same way for tyranids. I am pretty sure such spores would be KOS for every imperial commander if spottet on his territory, so a use in "infested" territory would make much more sense.




_________________
Attrition is the proof of absence of Strategy
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Ginger
 Post subject: Minefield as a classification
PostPosted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 10:42 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5483
Location: London, UK
Umm, while I quite like the "Minefield" rules presented in the Epic Assault article, could you explain how these are not a "special rule" in their own right?

I agree that we need to minimise the number of "special rules" for both Tau and Tyranids - which was one of the reasons behind suggesting a new unit classificatioin "STATIC" - much as people have agreed to "Disposable", and we are also considering "Stubborn". These new definitions allow us to concentrate these kind of general definitions elsewhere, reducing the number of rules that are particular to the army list. As it happens, although sympathetic to the background and concept, this is one of the reasons I am not happy with spores being "mobile" in the end turn, because that would be a "special rule".

As for the nuisance value of deploying them in front of enemy formations, any number of formations can already be used in this way; for example it is an accepted tactic that you can use small scout formations to harrass huge titans to wear down the opponent's activations, allowing a strike force to assemble nearby. However, my suggestion of specifying that the spores can ?be transported by a Synapse creature would reduce the possibilities of such nuisance tactics, while permitting Hena the possibility of a certain level of "nuisance" activity

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
zombocom
 Post subject: Minefield as a classification
PostPosted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 11:17 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 1:49 am
Posts: 5569
I once again state that I see no need whatsoever for the spore mines to need any kind of special rule.

We should be looking to reduce the number of special rules, not increase them. Standardising them into a main list is a whitewash, an unneccesary complication when it is perfectly possible to represent the units/formations in question using the standard unit rules and the occasional note.

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Soren
 Post subject: Minefield as a classification
PostPosted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 10:59 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 9:42 am
Posts: 694
Location: Austria

(Ginger @ Apr. 21 2008,23:42)
QUOTE
As for the nuisance value of deploying them in front of enemy formations, any number of formations can already be used in this way; for example it is an accepted tactic that you can use small scout formations to harrass huge titans to wear down the opponent's activations, allowing a strike force to assemble nearby. However, my suggestion of specifying that the spores can ?be transported by a Synapse creature would reduce the possibilities of such nuisance tactics, while permitting Hena the possibility of a certain level of "nuisance" activity

Simply wrong. The towers can be deployed ANYWHERE exept deployment zone, while scouts have to be deployed in the own half of table AND near an objective.

And if we need a new special rule, something is wrong with the unit, not with the rules, sorry




_________________
Attrition is the proof of absence of Strategy
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
The_Real_Chris
 Post subject: Minefield as a classification
PostPosted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 12:01 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm
Posts: 8139
Location: London

(ragnarok @ Apr. 17 2008,12:06)
QUOTE
I would go for a different name, since we already have mine fields as terrain with the siege regiments.

No we don't :)

_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Ginger
 Post subject: Minefield as a classification
PostPosted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 1:11 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5483
Location: London, UK

(Soren @ Apr. 22 2008,10:59)
QUOTE

(Ginger @ Apr. 21 2008,23:42)
QUOTE
As for the nuisance value of deploying them in front of enemy formations, any number of formations can already be used in this way; for example it is an accepted tactic that you can use small scout formations to harrass huge titans to wear down the opponent's activations, allowing a strike force to assemble nearby. However, my suggestion of specifying that the spores can ?be transported by a Synapse creature would reduce the possibilities of such nuisance tactics, while permitting Hena the possibility of a certain level of "nuisance" activity

Simply wrong. The towers can be deployed ANYWHERE exept deployment zone, while scouts have to be deployed in the own half of table AND near an objective.

And if we need a new special rule, something is wrong with the unit, not with the rules, sorry
Bad english on my part sorry ?:blush:
- the term "deploment" can be used both for the beginning of the game, but also when shooting missiles or dropping off troops etc. Perhaps this would be clearer:- Currently a player may move scouts or other small formations to harrass enemy titans. They do this by marching the scouts so that the titan ends up in the scouts ZoC, forcing the titan to assault them, or to move away (thus being a nuisance).

I am suggesting that Tyranid Synapse creatures could be manoeuvered towards enemy formations etc, and then "disembark" the spores ?towards the enemy in such a way that it causes a similar nuisance. No special rules involved at all, and nothing about deployment in the opponents table half. Does that make better sense??

However, could you expand on "towers"; I do not think the Tyranids have any unit like that. Are you thinking of something from the Necrons which also needs a similar kind of definition??




_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Soren
 Post subject: Minefield as a classification
PostPosted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 8:25 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 9:42 am
Posts: 694
Location: Austria
Expand on towers?

mhm kay, I think I already stated, I will try to summarize:

I see tyranid spre swarms more as static placements, like the sentry towers of the TAU (I can already hear then TAU community complain about his :;): taking one of their special rules, how I dare.... ). Both types add a feature to a surrounding area. (Towers would add markerlight, spores would add anti air). We could catch two flies if we make them terrain features, placeable in the same manner (example: 4 units, the first has to be placed 15cm of an objective in you own half, all others can do a conga line if you want.) This would be near to the siegemaster rules of fortifications and we get rid of special placement restriction. Every (new?)army list seems to have a unit which makes troubles like this, but with the solution I suggest we would get rid of two of them very easily.

Summarize:

0.) count as terrain feature
1.) deploy after objectives
2.) First unit 15 cm around one of your objectives
3.) only in your half of the table
3.) add a special rule to a specific radius around the units placed

I think this is pretty the same rule the siegemasters use.

For the necron Issue I thougt about placing Pylons the same way (but is ridiculous with the stats they have now)




_________________
Attrition is the proof of absence of Strategy
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
  Print view Previous topic | Next topic 
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 2 of 2
  [ 29 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 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