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

They Shall Know No Fear
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=73&t=10742		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  Markconz [ Fri Oct 12, 2007 9:23 pm ]
Post subject:  They Shall Know No Fear
Ok here's me going into conservative mode again. Basically feedback I've had is that proposed changes to the ATSKNF are problematic, and I'm starting to agree. So here's a look at the existing option (1), a compromise version (2), and a no change option (3).


TWEAK PROPOSAL 1

This is the existing proposal. The principle behind the change is to try and make marines count half effect from blast markers across situations (which is fine in principle), but the execution of this leaves a lot to be desired, it doesn't really achieve this anyway, and it may have wound up being more trouble than it's worth.  

The proposals make the ATSKNF rule particularly long and unwieldy. I'm especially thinking of the first of the two introduced clauses with it's inelegant long winded wording and extra exception:

"Space Marine formations only count half their number of blast markers in assault resolution (rounding down - note that assault resolution will not receive +1 for having no blast marker if the formation has 1 blast marker before rounding down). "

Unit stat tweaks are one thing, but introducing new clauses into special rules sections that are already fairly lengthy strikes me as something to avoid if possible. Especially when introduced clauses are worded so awkwardly. It also adds a further complication to remember and mechanism to process in assaults (which are already complicated enough).

My gut feeling is it might be better to simply ditch this. Is this change really necessary now, given the proposed modifications to this list and others? If a boost to ATSKNF is a a good idea is this the best way to do it? If this is the best way to do it - does the wording have to be so crap?  

For ease of comparison here is the complete current rule proposal from the Change Document:

5.1.1 They Shall Know No Fear
Status:  Experimental/Controversial
Perceived issue:  The Space Marine army is less durable and resistant to command/control issues than fits the background material.
Concept and commentary:  Improve TSKNF as an across the board increase in SM toughness.
The changes below keep to the concept of 2BM = 1BM for Space Marines.  Overall it is a modest but noticeable increase in ability.
Text (Conceptual):  
(add to Firepower paragraph)
Space Marines are renowned for their tenacity and bravery. This is represented by the following rules:
? It takes two Blast markers to suppress a Space Marine unit or kill a unit in a broken formation (ignore any left over Blast markers).
? Space Marine formations are only broken if they have two Blast markers per unit in the formation.
? Space Marine formations only count half their number of blast markers in assault resolution (rounding down - note that assault resolution will not receive +1 for having no blast marker if the formation has 1 blast marker before rounding down). Halve the number of extra hits suffered by a Space Marine formation that loses an assault, rounding down in favour of the Space Marines.
? When a broken Space Marine formation rallies then it receives a number of Blast markers equal to the number of units, rather than half this number.  Space Marine units with the Leader special ability remove 2 Blast markers instead of 1.



TWEAK PROPOSAL 2

Here's an alternative tweak to the existing proposal that's a compromise between lots of change and no change. ATSKNF is still tweaked to give marines a small boost, but rather than adding messy inelegant clauses, the existing 4th clause is simply deleted. Thus marines get a boost to their recovery and are less affected by blast markers, but there are even less special exceptions to remember. Ie ditch this clause:

"? When a broken Space Marine formation rallies then it receives a number of Blast markers equal to the number of units, rather than half this number."

So the rule becomes this:

Space Marines are renowned for their tenacity and bravery. This is represented by the following rules:
? It takes two Blast markers to suppress a Space Marine unit or kill a unit in a broken formation (ignore any left over Blast markers).
? Space Marine formations are only broken if they have two Blast markers per unit in the formation.
? Halve the number of extra hits suffered by a Space Marine formation that loses an assault, rounding down in favour of the Space Marines.


TWEAK OPTION 3
Would be no tweak - ie just ditch any proposed changes to the ATSKNF rule.


I'd be in favour of Tweak Option 2 I think. Or 3.
Author:  Dave [ Fri Oct 12, 2007 9:52 pm ]
Post subject:  They Shall Know No Fear
Not sure if you had a cut and paste error there, but the original rule is as follows:

Space Marines are renowned for their tenacity and bravery. This is represented by the following rules:

1) It takes two Blast markers to suppress a Space Marine unit or kill a unit in a broken formation (ignore any left over Blast markers).

2) Space Marine formations are only broken if they have two Blast markers per unit in the formation.

3) Halve the number of extra hits suffered by a Space Marine formation that loses an assault, rounding down in favour of the Space Marines.

4) When a broken Space Marine formation rallies then it receives a number of Blast markers equal to the number of units, rather than half this number.

So effectively, your compromise # 2 is a downgrade (as you loose 4) and gain nothing... Pretty sure that's not what you intended.

This was one of those changes I wanted to comment on anyway.  I agree with you that I thought the text added to the third bullet was rather confusing, so I came out with this revision:

Space Marines are renowned for their tenacity and bravery. This is represented by the following rules:

1) It takes two Blast markers to suppress a Space Marine unit or kill a unit in a broken formation (ignore any left over Blast markers).

2) Space Marine formations are only broken if they have two Blast markers per unit in the formation.

3) Space Marine formations never count as having more Blast markers than opposing formations with regards to assault resolution.

4) Halve the number of extra hits suffered by a Space Marine formation that loses an assault, rounding down in favour of the Space Marines.

5) When a broken Space Marine formation rallies then it receives a number of Blast markers equal to the number of units, rather than half this number.

6) Space Marine units with the Leader special ability remove 2 Blast markers instead of 1.

So, in Neal's compromise there's a chance your opponent might not get the +1.  In mine, it's definite.  Considering most SM formations get out numbered anyway, keeping an additional +1 from the opponent I thought would be OK.

Thoughts?
Author:  nealhunt [ Fri Oct 12, 2007 10:19 pm ]
Post subject:  They Shall Know No Fear
I agree they've gotten clunky.

The # of BMs when rallying is actually more of a clarification of how the 2BM per unit to break works than an actual rule.

I think it might be worth it to simply state the "2=1" concept and explain how it results in the list that makes up the current "rules."  Just to illustrate what I have in mind, something like:
Space Marines are renowned for their tenacity and bravery. Because of their ferocious dedication, blast markers only have half the effect on Space Marine units that they do on other units.  This has the following effects:

? It takes two Blast markers to suppress a Space Marine unit or kill a unit in a broken formation (ignore any left over Blast markers).

? Space Marine formations are only broken if they have two Blast markers per unit in the formation (a broken SM formation counts as having 2 blast markers per unit instead of 1 per unit).

? Space Marine formations only count half their number of blast markers in assault resolution (rounding down, but rounding to zero doesn't claim the bonus for no BMs).

? Halve the number of extra hits suffered by a Space Marine formation that loses an assault, rounding down in favour of the Space Marines.
Author:  Dave [ Fri Oct 12, 2007 10:38 pm ]
Post subject:  They Shall Know No Fear

(Dave @ Oct. 12 2007,16:52)
QUOTE
So effectively, your compromise # 2 is a downgrade (as you loose 4) and gain nothing... Pretty sure that's not what you intended.

Whoops, my bad.  What you're removing is a downgrade.  So  then a removed downgrade means an actual upgrade.  Anyway, I'd still like to hear people's thoughts on what I proposed.

Dave
Author:  Evil and Chaos [ Fri Oct 12, 2007 11:13 pm ]
Post subject:  They Shall Know No Fear
Not bad Neal; If you can squeeze 'SM leaders remove 2BMs' in there it'll be elegant and readable.
Author:  Markconz [ Sat Oct 13, 2007 10:03 am ]
Post subject:  They Shall Know No Fear
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.
Author:  Evil and Chaos [ Sat Oct 13, 2007 11:15 am ]
Post subject:  They Shall Know No Fear
Thus ditching the 4th clause would produce a nice parallel effect between the two games

But, wouldn't it be overpowered?
Author:  Markconz [ Sat Oct 13, 2007 12:17 pm ]
Post subject:  They Shall Know No Fear
I didn't think so when I considered it, given that boosts from the assault mod and extra BM removal from leader is removed.
Eg.
3 landraiders rather than 1 being suppressed after rallying none would be (but still -1 to activate and 1 BM away from suppression).
5 tacticals, rather than 2 being suppressed 1 would be suppressed (and still -1 to activate).
Sounds ok to me.
Author:  Markconz [ Sat Oct 13, 2007 2:22 pm ]
Post subject:  They Shall Know No Fear
True good point.

I really think I'm probably in favour of ditching any change to this rule altogether for now. See how all the other tweaks work out and maybe revisit it next time around if needed.

Or if something really has to be introduced just the simplest sort of clause possible. Eg.
"Marine formations remove an extra blast marker if they rally successfully "

Spirit stones for marines in other words, which would seem to curse it from the start...  except that it is actually in line with the marine background of fast recovery, and generic across formation types rather than favouring certain types of formations as current proposals do. Not to mention less complex from the point of view of wordiness, mechanics etc.
Author:  Evil and Chaos [ Sat Oct 13, 2007 3:49 pm ]
Post subject:  They Shall Know No Fear
I feel the exact opposite to Hena.

Marines can already win Assaults if done right, but they're slowed down by BM's too easily, so Leaders removing two is more important.
Author:  Dave [ Sat Oct 13, 2007 9:45 pm ]
Post subject:  They Shall Know No Fear
My idea with:

3) Space Marine formations never count as having more Blast markers than opposing formations with regards to assault resolution.

Was based on my assumption that the marines' training is so high that the rigors of combat has less of an effect on them.  Where blast markers would normally hinder other formations, marines shrug it off like it worth nothing.

At any rate, I'm with E&C on the leader issue.  If anything else is done beyond that I think it should be simple and well worded to prevent further confusion/FAQ entries.

Dave
Author:  The_Real_Chris [ Wed Oct 31, 2007 3:01 pm ]
Post subject:  They Shall Know No Fear
Very much on the two for one with leaders - needed and fluffy in increasing character numbers. It might be a bit inelegant but characters need a small boost, and this I reckon is it, plus it ties in with the boost generally needed for marines, and making them less affected by command and control issues is the way to go.

As to the overall balance - people are moaning about the lack of thunderhawk objective steals and the like, so I wil wait to see how it pans out, preferably in one of Matts tourneys.
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/