|
Ok I've given this some more consideration and careful weighing of pros and cons. I believe Dave's and Neal's ideas, while improvements in some ways, are also problematic in others (and Neal's especially in it's current form).
Specifically regarding Neal's idea (though some of these apply to Dave's idea too):
1. On seeing the attempt at execution, I think the 'half blast marker' idea is a worthwhile conceptual factor that should guide the rules, but not something the rules should seek to emulate at any cost. Concepts should inform development but not dictate it at the expense of gameplay and elegance. The idea is a good focus for making a couple of characterful rule mechanisms (exceptions to general rules in a couple of instances), but I'm against letting it spawn an unwieldy family of mechanisms that increase complexity and/or exceptions across a range of situations without very good reason.
2. Introducing the 'half blast marker' idea into the rule itself as you have done immediately causes a glaring contradiction in any case. Ie the claim of a universal general clause is immediately violated by one or more of the specific clauses that follow. Maybe because my profession is science I'm just really picky about this (it causes an instant panic reaction of - a journal editor would reject this without a second glance!), but good rule writing is technical and should still be logical like science where possible IMO. Ie one BM no half effect, rallying no half effect, leader no half effect. Of course you could ditch the universal clause but then why bother trying to force everything to adhere to it?
3. In any case these mods are from an earlier stage of affairs when mods to this and other lists didn't exist, and I stuck them in the handbook without really asking people. Though I was happy to have some progress in the right direction at the time, I'm now feeling uneasy about them on top of everything else (and more so given the feedback I've heard about the extensive wording, and the additional gameplay mechanisms they demand). A more minimal boost to ATSKNF here (or no boost), combined with other marine changes and downgrades to other lists, is probably more than adequate now - and likely to have a higher degree of acceptability to the general epic community I think (most people favour tweaks over wholesale revisions).
4. Lastly... the change proposes introducing a clause, deleting another clause, renumbering and basically going over and rewriting the whole rule from scratch (and it includes the contradiction stated in 2 above in the clarification). My immediate reaction, and thinking of other peoples is '"too much!" and "why not just go with the minimal tweak of deleting the single clause?"
To summarise overall I'm left thinking 1). arguably change for change sake with the impetus coming from the wrong place - concept rather than game mechanics or balance, 2) contradiction problems that are a Catch 22 problem to solve, 3) of doubtful necessity for game balance anyway, 4) and still excessive verbiage and change, and excessive extra or replacement rule mechanisms.
So best to go the minimal route here I think and ditch any change altogether. Or just do it minimally and ditch the 4th clause.
Just taking a look at the 40k ATSKNF rule (it's been a while since I have), I notice that ditching the 4th clause from the Epic rule would produce a similar concept in the two games - ie Marines that regroup (rally) in 40k recover much faster than other troops (and thinking about it - really doesn't that make sense given they are marines?). Thus ditching the 4th clause would produce a nice parallel effect between the two games (that also makes enormous sense given the background), as well as ditching an extra clunky clause and providing a boost. That sounds pretty good to me, and probably better than the no change option.
|
