| Tactical Command http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/ |
|
| Alternative first activation http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=69&t=13308 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | rpr [ Thu Aug 14, 2008 7:17 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Alternative first activation |
After seeing many battles basically determined by the strategy roll on the crucial point, I came up with an idea of how to make a battle a bit less dependant on a single roll.. The side which moves first cannot retain their first activation. Naturally this would hurt more of those with higher SR and especially Eldar. And yes, it would affect the game a lot as no more the one winning the activation on the second/third/fourth turn does 2 critical moves first. Now it would be more balanced: do I take the most critical action first, or then 2..? |
|
| Author: | Dwarf Supreme [ Thu Aug 14, 2008 8:09 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Alternative first activation |
Interesting idea. |
|
| Author: | Chroma [ Thu Aug 14, 2008 8:14 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Alternative first activation |
Quote: (rpr @ 14 Aug. 2008, 19:17 ) The side which moves first cannot retain their first activation. Couldn't the winner of the Strategy Roll then just let their opponent go first, take a single activation, and then roll forward with their plan? It may spoil things a bit, but would it be that great of a risk? I've often seen high SR armies let opponents make the first move in the early game. |
|
| Author: | Ginger [ Thu Aug 14, 2008 9:19 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Alternative first activation |
As Chroma says, in my circles it is almost standard practice to force the opponent to move first in the first turn, especially where you already have an activation advantage. However, I suspect that you intend this to apply to all turns, which would prove a bit more intruigung - 1st activations in the 2nd turn are usually the most crucial ones and I have played many games where the outcomes decided the remainder of the battle. Limiting them may provide a little more balance. |
|
| Author: | scarik [ Thu Aug 14, 2008 9:28 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Alternative first activation |
No one ever forces me to activate first on turn one with my IG, something about cruise missiles and artillery. I've never really had a problem with someone winning the SR then retaining on me. Sure its irritating, but the IG are very resilient and used to being out maneuvered. |
|
| Author: | pixelgeek [ Fri Aug 15, 2008 4:35 am ] |
| Post subject: | Alternative first activation |
Quote: (Ginger @ 14 Aug. 2008, 13:19 ) As Chroma says, in my circles it is almost standard practice to force the opponent to move first in the first turn, especially where you already have an activation advantage. Ditto |
|
| Author: | rpr [ Fri Aug 15, 2008 9:05 am ] |
| Post subject: | Alternative first activation |
This would apply to all turns, not just first. |
|
| Author: | The_Real_Chris [ Fri Aug 15, 2008 9:17 am ] |
| Post subject: | Alternative first activation |
You don't feel its balanced by the higher SR rating forcing the army to deploy objectives first and deploy a formation first? Also it should be accounted for in playtesting in terms of the relative power level (the eldar three activations certainly is). |
|
| Author: | Nicodemus [ Fri Aug 15, 2008 9:26 am ] |
| Post subject: | Alternative first activation |
Ability to make Alpha Strike is so fundamental part of Epic that I would not change it. Almost every good assault needs that normal activation and then retain. And if victory and defeat hangs in the balance of one strategy roll, well that is Epic! |
|
| Author: | Legion 4 [ Fri Aug 15, 2008 5:21 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Alternative first activation |
We don't use the SR ... just roll off at beginning of every turn. Winner has the option to activate a detachment/unit first or pass it on to his opponent. That way no army is at a disadvatage because of G/W Fluff !  The Army units & organization is "fluffy" enough.  And as rpr said, a game is less dependent on a single roll ... And IMO the flow of the game is more based on each players' "personal" SR ... ie. tactical skill/savvy ...  Then G/W's fluff ... 
|
|
| Author: | rpr [ Fri Aug 15, 2008 8:03 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Alternative first activation |
As a point here, I have nothing against SR differences. What I dislike is that there is this random thing (strategy roll on turn 2 very often) which usually has huge effect of the game and very often can decide the outcome of the battle. Actually, game-wise, I would prefer no strategy roll at all - the one with higher SR wins. If even, the one which did not last turn. But I know that many players here like more chaos/unknown variables in their games, with hours of work ditched by bad single roll. Thus, the rule I camer up with would diminish the effect of that roll. So this boils down to basic question of how much dice roll is good for the game. Lots of rolls that usually even up are good for my taste, but I do not like TOO important single rolls.. ' |
|
| Author: | Legion 4 [ Sat Aug 16, 2008 12:44 am ] |
| Post subject: | Alternative first activation |
ADWWFY ! 
|
|
| Author: | scarik [ Sat Aug 16, 2008 12:55 am ] |
| Post subject: | Alternative first activation |
Quote: (Legion 4 | Posted on 15 Aug. 2008 @ 17:21) We don't use the SR ... just roll off at beginning of every turn. If my Guard used this houserule I would never fear Eldar or Marines again, they need that edge desperately. I wouldn't mind letting higher SR just win each turn. |
|
| Author: | Wisp [ Wed Aug 20, 2008 9:54 am ] |
| Post subject: | Alternative first activation |
How about eldar, would they be allowed their extra retain (thus letting them activate two formations, but not three), or would they be limited to only one, too? But I do agree, I find the game can often hinge far too much on the second (and third) turn strategy roll. This would be one way to fix that. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|