Tactical Command
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/

Alternate Fearless Rule Proposal
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=69&t=11559		 Page 1 of 6
Author:  rpr [ Thu Jan 24, 2008 11:14 am ]
Post subject:  Alternate Fearless Rule Proposal
Change:
When broken or otherwise forced to take a withdrawal move, Fearless units may choose not to withdraw. Fearless units that remain stationary do not take additional damage. If the unit elects to withdraw it will take damage only if it ends its move within 5cm of the enemy  rather than 15cm. Fearless War Engines take a point of damage for each enemy within 5cm at the end of the withdrawal move.
to:
When broken or otherwise forced to take a withdrawal move, Fearless units may choose not to withdraw. Fearless units that remain stationary do not take additional damage. If the unit elects to withdraw it must obey all the normal rules and is destroyed if left within 15cm of an enemy unit.

Reasoning as before: to simplify rules, to prevent certain abuses. The argument 'but they do not fear!' is not sufficient enough to allow them to retreat to close vicinity of enemies - the same argument could also
be used to make them never break (blast markers just make them unable to shoot, but why would they stop being able to march to obejctives and so on if they are so fearless that they can approach enemy after been shot or assaulted heavily?)
Author:  nealhunt [ Thu Jan 24, 2008 4:17 pm ]
Post subject:  Alternate Fearless Rule Proposal
I think the key thing is that most players don't consider using Fearless units to block enemy movement to be abuse.
Author:  Ginger [ Fri Jan 25, 2008 12:56 am ]
Post subject:  Alternate Fearless Rule Proposal
Neal (and others),

This is the second post in as many days that has ?interpreted the term "Broken" to mean "Routed" (as I have done in the past). IMHO this is actually the more reasonable or *normal* interpretation of the term from other rulesets etc, and the source of some confusion.

Would it be worth editing the text to replace "Broken" with "Disorganised" which is the interpretation that we use in EPIC, and which is trotted out at regular intervals in the various forums? The point here being that usually, disorganised troops are very vulnerable to enemy action and therefore usually need to withdraw to regroup. OTOH Elite (or "fearless") troops still retain enough self discipline to maintain cohesion, so reducing some of the effects of being disorganised.

Although a cosmetic change, this interpretation is crucial to understanding what the game is protraying, and clearing this up would IMHO help all to get a better mental picture of the events unfolding on the table. It would also allow other interpretations of events - eg a single unit remaining from a formation representing the fighting capability of the formation rather than the actual numbers - so it becomes more credible that the remenants of a formation can indeed contest an objective, or hinder an enemy's advance. (You can imagine there are a lot of other people form the formation milling around who cannot actually fight for one reason or another, so they are no longer portrayed on the table).
Author:  Markconz [ Fri Jan 25, 2008 9:31 am ]
Post subject:  Alternate Fearless Rule Proposal
I think disorganised has problems too though... it seems somewhat strange to apply it's antonym to races such as orks for example.  The trouble with so many races with different psychologies is that any one word is probably not good enough. Hence the need to specify a word that's natural enough in the majority of cases, with the clarification attached that it labels a variety of conditions.

Also broken CAN be taken to mean that cohesion is broken up, or communication and control is broken up. It's not like it really is a black and white term with only one meaning (routed), which is part of the reason that it is used instead of routed IIRC.  People who see in black and white with broken would no doubt  do the same for disorganised (their not routing - their disorganised!)  leading to the similar problems I think.
Author:  rpr [ Fri Jan 25, 2008 11:59 am ]
Post subject:  Alternate Fearless Rule Proposal
If you want to emphasize the disorder vs. "being routed", it is even more logical that the rules are same for all..
Author:  Ginger [ Fri Jan 25, 2008 12:08 pm ]
Post subject:  Alternate Fearless Rule Proposal
Umm, I think the issue here is not how we view the *normal* state of formations / races, but how we understand their *disrupted* state (another possible word to use here) and more importantly, what they can or cannot do in that state.

The point is that, while we can apply the term "Broken" to any number of aspects of the formation, its equipment, communication, organisation etc. it is my belief that common usage of the term "Broken" in most other rule-sets is more than just *ineffective* (a further possibility). IMO, "Broken" is more extensive and thus closer to *routed* - hence the confusioin in people's minds when they see a "routed" formation advancing towards the enemy, or being moved to block an enemy's advance on an objective etc. However, it does make more sense for a "Disrupted" or "Disorganised" formation to be able to act in these ways.
Author:  Moscovian [ Fri Jan 25, 2008 1:06 pm ]
Post subject:  Alternate Fearless Rule Proposal
Rather than change the long standing description "Broken" why don't we just add a longer explanation in the Handbook 2008?  It would be easy enough.
Author:  Markconz [ Fri Jan 25, 2008 1:28 pm ]
Post subject:  Alternate Fearless Rule Proposal
Hmm interestingly I thought there already was, but actually it's the BM design description that I was thinking of:
"Blast markers represent a whole range of personal
disasters occurring to the units in a formation:
things being damaged, squads being scattered,
breaking or fleeing, and so on."
Author:  BlackLegion [ Fri Jan 25, 2008 4:19 pm ]
Post subject:  Alternate Fearless Rule Proposal
This explains Blastmarkers but not the state of being broken.
In the german version of Epic 40.000 the term "aufgerieben" (= "routed") was used.
So inthe current translation of the Epic: Armageddon rules set there was a heated debate which term should be used for broken. "gebrochen" was the literal translation (as in "broken morale")but but hasa to man different meanings that the first impression was of vomiting soldiers, things being broken in two pieces, etc. :D
So we came up with "demoralisiert" (= "demoralised"). Which just repsesents exactly what has happened to a broken formation.
Author:  Soren [ Fri Jan 25, 2008 7:02 pm ]
Post subject:  Alternate Fearless Rule Proposal

(nealhunt @ Jan. 24 2008,15:17)
QUOTE
I think the key thing is that most players don't consider using Fearless units to block enemy movement to be abuse.

With armies only consisting of  fearless formations it IS abuse. At least in my interpretation of gaming. ;)
Author:  nealhunt [ Fri Jan 25, 2008 7:39 pm ]
Post subject:  Alternate Fearless Rule Proposal

(Soren @ Jan. 25 2008,18:02)
QUOTE

(nealhunt @ Jan. 24 2008,15:17)
QUOTE
I think the key thing is that most players don't consider using Fearless units to block enemy movement to be abuse.

With armies only consisting of  fearless formations it IS abuse. At least in my interpretation of gaming. ;)

Considering that the lists with multiple all-Fearless formations haven't been doing especially well in batreps and playtest reports, why do you think it is abusive?  Is it overpowered with respect to game balance, or is it just really annoying?
Author:  zombocom [ Fri Jan 25, 2008 10:59 pm ]
Post subject:  Alternate Fearless Rule Proposal
Hena: There are few units with both fearless and scout, and most of those are being changed, no?
Author:  Ginger [ Sat Jan 26, 2008 3:04 am ]
Post subject:  Alternate Fearless Rule Proposal

(BlackLegion @ Jan. 25 2008,15:19)
QUOTE
This explains Blastmarkers but not the state of being broken.
In the german version of Epic 40.000 the term "aufgerieben" (= "routed") was used.
So inthe current translation of the Epic: Armageddon rules set there was a heated debate which term should be used for broken. "gebrochen" was the literal translation (as in "broken morale")but but hasa to man different meanings that the first impression was of vomiting soldiers, things being broken in two pieces, etc. :D
So we came up with "demoralisiert" (= "demoralised"). Which just repsesents exactly what has happened to a broken formation.

BL, I like the image of "vomiting" soldiers :p , but this illustrates my point rather well - we really do need a correct view of what being "Broken" actually means.

From a linguistic viewpoint, I don't think you can be both "Demoralised" and "Fearless" simultaneously - and I think some would have problems with the concept of "Demoralised" troops advancing towards the enemy or blocking the path of an enemy force.

The point is that "Broken" actually means more than an extension of the BM definition, because the formation is no longer able to fight offensively or activate (though interestingly it is allowed to defend itself, which I have always found slightly incongrous) - hence the suggestions of "Disrupted", "Disorganised" and "Ineffective".

However Moscovian's point is well made that we also need the term defined in the rulle book rather than through FAQ / forums etc. ?how about :-

1.3.1 Broken Formations
A formation is broken when the number of Blast markers equals the number of units in the formation, unless the rules specifically state otherwise. This represents the formation ceasing to operate effectively though the remaining squads and individuals still retain some fighting capability. A broken formation ceases to think offensively and has to withdraw, but may defend itself if assaulted. Communication breakdown prevents a broken formation from taking any normal activation in the action phase; instead it must try to rally in the end phase.

Hena and Soren; while I sympathise with your question over whether some formations or armies are "abusive", that really does depend upon your understanding of the capabilities of a Broken formation, and the impact of some / all of the formation being Fearless. In my experience, this only becomes a real problem as the numbers of Fearless units increases.
Page 1 of 6 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/