 
|
Page 1 of 1
|
[ 8 posts ] |
|
[ATSKNF] A suggested change and a battle report |
|
Chroma
|
Post subject: [ATSKNF] A suggested change and a battle report  Posted: Sat May 27, 2006 1:57 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
 |
 |
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 3:06 pm
Posts: 9684
Location: Montréal, QC, Canada
|
Had some great games this week, and really got to test or ATSKNF "experimental" rule. ?Please take a look and comment if you can.
They Shall Know No Fear
Add: Marines never count as outnumbered, only vastly outnumbered.
Change: When a broken Space Marine formation rallies then it receives a number of Blast markers equal to half the number of units (As is done for other, "normal" formations)
The battle: vs Necrons
And some comments:
| Quote (Ilushia @ 27 May 2006 (03:00)) | | How often did the second issue (Of coming back with 1 BM per half the units instead of 1 BM per unit) Come up? The 'only vastly outnumbered' rule seems reasonable to me. Especially with the Space Marines' combat-doctrines dividing them into small self-sufficient units. |
The main time was when Deathwing 3 rallied. ?Under the normal rules it woud've still had 1BM on it so, when assaulting Phalanx 1, it would've been down 2 in the combat resolution at the start, without the "only vastly out-numbered" rule it would've been a handicap of *3* going in! ?As well, a single shooting attack would have instantly broken it. ?I just don't see Marines been that fragile and the "half the number of BMs" is what every other army gets.
It becomes very apparent when there are 3 surviving Marine units in a formation, particularly if one is a character.
In the current rules, such a formation rallies back with 2 BM.
Under the "Space Marine leader counts as 2" rule some have proposed, such a formation has 1 BM.
Under our suggestion, such a formation comes back with 0 BM... just like any other 3 unit formation with a leader in any other army.
The "1 BM per unit" that Marines normally get is a massive handicap since it's next to impossible to clear them. ?I really think Marines should be the best at rallying/regrouping.
_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer
Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
Ilushia
|
Post subject: [ATSKNF] A suggested change and a battle report Posted: Mon May 29, 2006 10:10 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 10:50 am
Posts: 1189
|
|
I suggested that. Someone else may have as well. It's part of the linked battle report, but here it is again for those of you too lazy to look for it (You know who you are!)
I'd agree with you on this one. It feels odd for Space Marines to have so many problems dropping back down to 0 BMs. One other option is perhaps to count the number of BMs they have as half as many for purposes of Assaults, rounding down. So a Marine squad with 1 BM will count as having 0 BMs. With 3 will count as having 1. Etc. It might require a little more math, but it'd fit with the 'style' of ATSKNF, which essentially halves the damage that Blast Markers do. |
|
| Top |
|
|
|
nealhunt
|
Post subject: [ATSKNF] A suggested change and a battle report Posted: Tue May 30, 2006 2:23 pm |
|
| Purestrain |
 |
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
|
|
We also played a test game of SM w/ modifications v Orks over the weekend.
I have to say the "not outnumbered" rule is a huge benefit to the SMs. There was not a single assault in the entire game in which it did not give a +1 resolution to the SMs.
We also used "count half BMs for assault" which, depending on whether you round up or down would have made a difference of +1 resolution in one assault (but not the outcome of the assault) and "SM leaders remove 2 BMs" which didn't come into play at all due to an unusually small number of leaders on the SM side.
As it was, the game hinged on assaults. The marines lost 2 major engagements despite +2 resolution on their side and that pretty much decided the game. Both were what I would put firmly in the "probably win but a dicey tactic" category, so that's not horrible. Nonetheless, without eliminating the outnumbering penalty I think they would have been in the "desperate gambit" category.
_________________
Neal
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Chroma
|
Post subject: [ATSKNF] A suggested change and a battle report Posted: Tue May 30, 2006 5:24 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
|
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 3:06 pm
Posts: 9684
Location: Montréal, QC, Canada
|
| Quote (nealhunt @ 30 May 2006 (14:23)) | | "SM leaders remove 2 BMs" which didn't come into play at all due to an unusually small number of leaders on the SM side. |
Just curious, why do you feel it's "acceptable" that 3 Marine units with a leader come off worse when rallying than any other army's three units and leader?
Just removing that "1 BM per unit when rallying" instead of the "1/2 BM per unit" that every other army (well, except Tyranids!) gets would solve a world of problems.
Yes, it makes Marines harder to "re-break", but doesn't that just seem right?
_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer
Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
nealhunt
|
Post subject: [ATSKNF] A suggested change and a battle report Posted: Tue May 30, 2006 6:05 pm |
|
| Purestrain |
|
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
|
|
Why do you feel it's "acceptable" for a broken formation to come off better when rallying than an unbroken formation?
I don't think that there should be a mechanic that makes it better to be broken. Ever.
That's my biggest problem with that idea. It makes it better for the marines to go ahead and break in certain situations. It becomes easier for them to rally back from broken than from almost-broken.
For example, from your 3-unit example, a broken formation rallies back with 1 BM while an unbroken formation with 4 or 5 BMs will rally back with 2 BMs. With a normal Leader, it becomes even more of an actual in-game issue at 0BM v 1BM.
Combined with the ability of a broken unit to make a withdrawal move, I think in many cases I would actually prefer to be broken than just near-broken even with the rally penalty (assuming the 1/2 BM idea).
The situations in which the 2xLeader option comes off worse compared to the 1/2BM rally option are very few. Basically, outside of the odd-number-broken-formation which is odd because of the rounding issues the 2x leader is equal or better for Marines.
_________________
Neal
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Chroma
|
Post subject: [ATSKNF] A suggested change and a battle report Posted: Tue May 30, 2006 6:18 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
|
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 3:06 pm
Posts: 9684
Location: Montréal, QC, Canada
|
| Quote (nealhunt @ 30 May 2006 (18:05)) | | Why do you feel it's "acceptable" for a broken formation to come off better when rallying than an unbroken formation? |
Because Marines that feel they have failed the Emperor once will come back with that much more zeal to re-prove themselves? ?*laugh*
Honestly, I'd actually go for *both* solutions, SM leader removes 2BMs and half BMs when rallying from broken, in addition to the "only every vastly outnumbered" as additions/changes to ATSKNF rule. ?Marines should be the bravest muthas on the battlefield.
And I think almost everyone admits they need a boost.
_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer
Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Suvarov454
|
Post subject: [ATSKNF] A suggested change and a battle report Posted: Thu Jun 01, 2006 12:38 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
 |
Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2006 2:24 am
Posts: 233
Location: Albany, NY
|
| Quote (Chroma @ 30 May 2006 (17:24)) |
Just curious, why do you feel it's "acceptable" that 3 Marine units with a leader come off worse when rallying than any other army's three units and leader?
Just removing that "1 BM per unit when rallying" instead of the "1/2 BM per unit" that every other army (well, except Tyranids!) gets would solve a world of problems.
Yes, it makes Marines harder to "re-break", but doesn't that just seem right? |
Frankly, I do. Space Marine infantry have better armor saves than any of the other printed armies (I haven't followed Chaos, Necrons, Tau, or Tyranids... no opposing armies) so they don't take BMs for hits as often as anyone else. Combined with ATSKNF, the volume of fire required to break a Marine formation is higher than that needed to break an Ork or IG infantry formation at the same price. The initiative of 1 on all formations also makes it very, very likely that formations will rally. I value every one of the BMs I place on a Marine formation at least as much as the ones I place on an IG or Ork formation, and I'd hate to see Marines shed them easier.
ATSKNF can be a double-edged sword when you do break. A Marine player has to worry about force preservation more than an Ork or IG player. I think that's the correct "feel" for the army. Remember: Marines are highly valuable individuals delivering sword thrusts at strategically significant targets. Leave the unstoppable tide of troops engaging in battles of attrition to the Orks and IG.
Also I consider the "1 BM per unit when rallying from Broken" instead of the "1/2 BM per unit" quite fair. Otherwise, as Neal said, Marines would shed more BMs by breaking than by simply rallying. A 3 stand detachment with 5 BMs sheds 3. It makes no sense to me for a broken 3 stand detachment to shed 5. Yeah, comming back from broken with a mess of BMs makes it very difficult to assault; use the formation for support shooting or securing objectives instead.
_________________
Happy to have survived to being a Grognard!
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
|
Page 1 of 1
|
[ 8 posts ] |
|
