Dwarf_S,
I didn't quote that... I just made it up on the fly...
| Tactical Command http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/ |
|
| Broken and Fearless http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=69&t=6613 |
Page 1 of 3 |
| Author: | CyberShadow [ Wed Nov 02, 2005 10:54 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Broken and Fearless |
This thread is to discuss the following proposed rule - from Baduin. The rules for broken formation in EpicA are based on the decision not to rule in which direction broken formation should withdraw, which is difficult (they should move towards their own lines, but away from the enemy, avoid impassable and difficult terrain, etc) but to introduce instead penalties for broken formation being near enemy. It generally works very well. It breaks down only with wholly fearless formations, which are free from nearly all such penalties. As has been shown above, they can use withdrawal movements to advance, in the hope of rallying and assaulting enemy, I would suggest the following rule, added to the rules for the fearless units: "Withdrawal usually represents a formation desperately trying to break away from the enemy, and so moving fast (taking two moves) but suffering additional casualties. But a formation composed only of fearless troops keeps cool nerves in the presence of the enemy. Even when broken, they seek cover, defend tenaciously any strong point and only unwillingly retreat. Because of that, they do not suffer additional casualties, but move slower. Any formation consisting only of Fearless units makes only a single move (instead of two) when withdrawing." There is also a lesser problem of using fearless formations to move on objective, ignoring zones of control. In regard to that problem I would propose the following rule change: 1.13.3 Withdrawals .... Withdrawal moves may be made in any direction, but if a unit ends the second withdrawal move within 15cm of the enemy, it is destroyed (it is killed while trying to escape!). Units belonging to formations withdrawing after lost engagement may ignore enemy zones of control while making a withdrawal move but may not move directly over enemy units. This do not applies to formations broken by Blast Markers or withdrawing after failing the rally roll in the end phase. | |
| Author: | nealhunt [ Thu Nov 03, 2005 12:10 am ] |
| Post subject: | Broken and Fearless |
I've stayed opposed to this in all its various forms. === Jervis made it clear that the intent of the "ignore ZoC" rule was solely so that formations could escape from a lost assault. It's broader application is what is causing problems, not the intended effect. Also, during a lot of playtesting broken Fearless units were still destroyed if they ended a withdrawal within a ZoC, just like a normal unit within 15cm. I've never figured out why that was dropped. Reinstituting the Fearless/ZoC rule (which has already been well playtested) and changing the "ignore ZoC" from all withdrawal moves to only assault-loss (basically, move it from 1.13 to 1.12) would accomplish the same intended effects. |
|
| Author: | mageboltrat [ Thu Nov 03, 2005 12:18 am ] | ||
| Post subject: | Broken and Fearless | ||
How about changing the rule to. A unit that is broken in combat may ignore the ZOC of formations in the combat or have added supporting fire? |
|||
| Author: | Tactica [ Thu Nov 03, 2005 4:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Broken and Fearless |
Hmm... I'm with NH on this. I'm not sure I understand the reason or need for this. If we are trying to penalize fearless, why? They are fearless afterwards. Withdrawal doesn't mean scattering, running around like a chicken with your head cut off... it means tactical withdrawl. Fearless units are not mindless, they are not necessarily arrogant or stalwart either. They just don't buckle under pressure and forget their battlefield doctrine when the situation gets too hot. They should still deserve the right to tactically withdraw IMHO. Hell, not that I want to see it or am proposing it, but a Fearless unit might withdraw _more_ tactically than a unit whim which withdraws and is _not_fearless. So, I'm with NH as I really don't understand the need for this rule. I'm a firm believer of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" Sorry. |
|
| Author: | mageboltrat [ Thu Nov 03, 2005 7:45 pm ] | ||
| Post subject: | Broken and Fearless | ||
You sure it's not broken.... OK. try this one. Warlord Titan, loses a combat, becomes broken... It then moves twice. If it then fails it's rally test it then move twice again.... I've seen the things, hit the blitz objective turn 2. when normally they would be unable to do this easily. |
|||
| Author: | Tactica [ Thu Nov 03, 2005 9:13 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Broken and Fearless |
Well, two doubles from breaking plus whatever he moved first turn before he broke and got to the blitz objective? Without calculating that math, I trust you - but that seems really far... Regardless though, your point is understood. I've seen broken formations run all over the place that I think is more tactical or gamey rather than flat out breaking and running. A withdrawal from a non-fearless formation to your lines is only not a problem if you can put further blast markers on him or engage him. If he retreats to the heart of a large wood, becomes invisible due to the city walls and is no longer in LOF - the non fearless unit that just moved into your lines is just as problematic as the fearless one that walked right up to your blitz objective. At this scale, I consider that less gamy and more tactical. I withdrew to a position on the battlefield that best suited my units survivability - right? It could also be a measure risk to a fearless unit - + + + Digression + + + "... the decison to barge straight into the enemy's maw was immediate, grave, and without question. Their lines were dumping a withering hail of fire that was knocking our systems down just as quickly as the servitors could get them online. I could feel the damage, metal creaking, critcal damge - my pain. We needed assistance but comms were down. I have orders and the Lord Admiral was clear. I, Agintal Krill, Grand Princeps of Legio Victis, would not faulter on this day. The God-Emporer protects!" 'GODHAMMER' pressed on, seamingly fearless towards the prime objective - "For the Emporer!" blaring out locally audible comm systems. Appearently that's all it was good for at this point... + + + End Digression + + + Question you _seem_ to be asking is whether the withdrawal moves in general are a problem in E:A, right? I'm not convinced its a problem as aforementioned. I'm not sure tactical withdrawal isn't intentional and justifiable at this scale. Regardless, at this point I'm not convinced that you are siting a 'fearless unit' specific issue though. In your specific question/example, I would first have to say "Yay, the warlord isn't charging or shooting on turn 2, and I broke it in turn 1!" I would then wonder why I didn't do anything about this stranded warlord titan on my side of the table. If there's ever a time to The amount of blast markers alone should put it as a prime combat candidate OR crossfire candidate _if_ there are adequate resources in the area... ... and if there are not adequate resources in the area... ... the next question begs, Why not - its your Blitz objective? Cheers, |
|
| Author: | Dwarf Supreme [ Thu Nov 03, 2005 9:24 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Broken and Fearless |
Again, I'm with NH on this one. Although I'm not sure quoting GW's literature is the right way to support a game's rule, I do agree with your reasoning, Tactica. |
|
| Author: | Tactica [ Thu Nov 03, 2005 9:25 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Broken and Fearless |
Dwarf_S, I didn't quote that... I just made it up on the fly...
|
|
| Author: | mageboltrat [ Thu Nov 03, 2005 9:39 pm ] | ||
| Post subject: | Broken and Fearless | ||
With a non fearless unit they have to bother about being within 15cm at the end of their move... Fearless units can ignore intervening enemy units to a stupid degree, as they run across the table at a stupid rate. .. |
|||
| Author: | Dwarf Supreme [ Thu Nov 03, 2005 9:43 pm ] | ||
| Post subject: | Broken and Fearless | ||
Really? I'm impressed. It sounded like one of GW's authors wrote it. 
|
|||
| Author: | Tactica [ Thu Nov 03, 2005 11:00 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Broken and Fearless |
Mageboltrat, stupid degree, stupid rate... | |
| Author: | CyberShadow [ Wed Nov 09, 2005 12:12 am ] |
| Post subject: | Broken and Fearless |
Can someone summarise the feeling on this rule? It seems that the rule as originally proposed is not supported, but that a rewording or variation on the rule could be interesting. Does anyone want to put forward a suggestion? Thanks. |
|
| Author: | Tactica [ Wed Nov 09, 2005 2:06 am ] |
| Post subject: | Broken and Fearless |
CS, What's the problem here we are being asked to fix? Is withdrawing in any direction a problem? Is there a problem with fearless units not running away from the enemy? As of yet, I'm not either convinced or clear of the problem's existence so I'm definitely not the one to write a new rule on this topic. Cheers, |
|
| Page 1 of 3 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|