Tactical Command | View topic - Revising the barrage rulesFrom Jervis

Page 1 of 4

[ 50 posts ]

Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

View unanswered posts | View active topics View unread posts | View new posts | View your posts

Revising the barrage rulesFrom Jervis

The_Real_Chris

Post subject: Revising the barrage rulesFrom Jervis

Posted: Thu Apr 12, 2007 10:03 am

Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm
Posts: 8139
Location: London

To move all that text out of the other thread (sorry was in a school library and was having problems opening a new thread) here for archive purposes is the old forums discussions on alternative barrage rules.

From Jervis

I plan to put some 'experimental' rules up in the vault soon. These are alternatives to the current rules, designed to deal with some of the problems we've run into since the rulebook came out. Please note that these are not 'new rules' that must be used. They are ideas that I'd like feedback on, and which will then be discussed in depth in the Epic rules review. Also note that I won't make any changes unless they are broadly approved by the Epic community and the rules committee.

The third of these experimental rules covers the way that barrages are carried out, and is designed to solve some of the 'min-maxing' problems associated with the current barrage table.

1.9.8 Barrages (change)

Many artillery pieces, rocket launchers and some other weapons fire a barrage of shots causing mass destruction on the enemy. When these guns or launchers are grouped together in an attack they always fire a single barrage at the same target. On their datasheets, these weapons have no to hit rolls ? instead they have a number of barrage points (BPs). The main difference between a barrage and a normal attack is that the barrage covers a substantial area and so may hit several units.

To fire a barrage, first take a Barrage template (see 1.0.1) and place it on the table where you want the barrage to land. Each weapon contributing to the barrage must be within range and have a line of fire to at least one unit under the template. Weapons that are not in range or do not have a line of fire to an enemy unit that falls under the template may not fire at all this turn. You are allowed to place templates over your own units, or units from several enemy formations if you wish but all units under the templates ? friend and foe alike ? are attacked. Any formation that is attacked receives a Blast marker for ?coming under fire? (see 1.9.4). Next, refer to the data sheet to work out the total number of Barrage points. The whole formation fires at once, so the number of Barrage points for each weapon that is in range and has a line of fire is added together. When you have worked out the total number of barrage points refer to the barrage table below. Note that a formation may only fire one barrage per turn ? a single formation may not fire separate barrages at different targets.

The Barrage table lists the hit roll required to hit each unit under the Barrage template. Roll to hit all units (friend or foe) under the template with the appropriate to hit values. In order to speed dice rolling we recommend rolling to hit all units of exactly the same type together, and then removing any casualties from those closest to the enemy first.

Barrage Points/Extra Blast Markers/To Hit AP&MW/To Hit AT

1BP/None/6+/6+
2BP/None/5+/6+
3BP/None/4+/6+
4BP/None/4+/5+
5-8BP/One BM/4+/5+
9-12 BP/Two BM/4+/5+
13-16BP/Three BM/4+/5+
17 or more BP/Four BM/4/5+

Extra Blast Markers: Really large artillery barrages are very effective at suppressing enemy troops as well as killing them. To represent this, a large barrage may inflict extra Blast markers, as shown on the barrage table. The Blast markers are placed in addition to any Blast markers placed on a formation for it coming under fire or for any casualties that it suffered. If several formations are being attacked then each receives the appropriate number of extra Blast markers.

Dispersed Barrages: If you wish when firing a barrage of 5 or more Barrage points you can choose to place extra barrage templates and divide the barrage points available for the barrage between them. This is known as a dispersed barrage. The number of templates used for a dispersed barrage is equal to the total number of barrage points for the barrage divided by 4 and rounded up. Thus a dispersed barrage with 5-8 Barrage points would use two templates, and dispersed barrage with 9-12 Barrage points would use three templates, and so on. Place any extra templates so that they touch the first template that was placed, and so that no templates overlap. Note that once the first template has been placed, the attacker may choose where to place the additional templates, as long as they are touching the first template, and no line of fire, placement or range restrictions apply (see below). The Barrage points for a dispersed barrage are divided as equally as possible between all of the templates. If any points are ?left over?, then the first left over point is allocated to the first template that was placed, the second left over point (if there is one) is allocated to the second template placed, and so on. Roll to hit the units under each template normally, using the number of Barrage points allocated to the template to work out the to hit rolls etc.

Indirect Fire: Some weapons that can fire barrages are noted as having the indirect fire ability. Units armed with indirect fire weapons are allowed to fire indirectly if their formation takes a sustained fire action. Units belonging to a formation that fails the action test may shoot normally as part of their hold action, but may not fire indirectly. Units firing an indirect barrage receive the +1 modifier for taking a sustained fire action. In addition, no line of fire is required for an indirect barrage, as it is assumed that the barrage is fired high in the air so that the shots rain down on the target and ignore any intervening terrain. Co-ordinates for the barrage are provided by ?spotters? that are either in other friendly formations that do have a line of fire, or from orbiting spy satellites or planes. Finally, the high trajectory used by weapons firing indirectly greatly increases their range, but means they cannot fire at targets that are too close by. To represent this, weapons firing indirectly double their range, but have a minimum range of 30cms.

Using Barrage Templates: Deciding which enemy units have been caught underneath a circular Barrage template is another one of the things that can cause endless arguments during a game. The method we use (and the default you should use unless you have a different convention that you prefer) is that a unit is affected if any part of the model falls under the template, or at least one model on a stand. In addition, templates must be placed in such a way as to get as many enemy units from the target formation under them as possible within the restrictions for lines of fire and range. This stops players ?sniping? at important units with artillery.

Best regards,

Jervis Johnson
Head Fanatic

Firther to my last message, here is a revised barrage table, based on Jaldon's table, but with an important change to make three and four point barrages more effective:

BPs/Ex Bms/Firepower

1 /0 /AP6+ AT6+

2 /0 /AP5+ AT6+

3 /0 /AP4+ AT5+

4 /1 /AP4+ AT5+

5-8 /2 /AP4+ AT5+

9-12 /2 /AP3+ AT4+

13-16 /3 /AP3+ AT4+

17+ /3 /AP2+ AT3+

MW use the AP to hit values.

The rules in my original post remain the same, with one important change: Dispersed barrages do NOT receive extra BM (ie, only 'converged' one template barrages get extra BM). The rule is necessary to avoid complications with four point dispersed barrages inflicting lots of extra BM on a single target formations.

Best regards,

Jervis Johnson
Head Fanatic

_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' Ã¢â‚¬â€œ Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x

Top

The_Real_Chris

Post subject: Revising the barrage rulesFrom Jervis

Posted: Thu Apr 12, 2007 10:04 am

Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm
Posts: 8139
Location: London

And From Jaldon

The below charts are based on there being three units under each template, and are the average number of hits that could be scored. The BMs are based on the potential BMs with the average hits scored. This was done so that a consistant average number of Hits and BMs could be used for comparison purposes.

The Present Epic-A Barrage Table
BPs/AP(BMs)/AT(BMs)

1 /AP .99(1) /AT .99(1)

2 /AP 1.50(2) /AT .99(1)

3 /AP 1.98(2) /AT .99(1)

4-5 /AP 3.96(4) /AT 3.00(4)

6-7 /AP 3.96(5) /AT 3.00(5)

8-9 /AP 5.94(7) /AT 4.50(6)

10-12 /AP 5.94(8) /AT 4.50(7)

13-15 /AP 5.94(9) /AT 4.50(8)

16-18 /AP5.94(10) /AT4.50(9)

Jervis's Proposed Barage Table
BPs(Templates)/AP(BMs)/AT(BMs)

1(1) /AP .99(1) /AT .99(1)

2(1) /AP 1.50(2) /AT .99(1)

3(1) /AP 1.98(2) /AT .99(1)

4(1) /AP 1.98(2) /AT 1.50(2)

5(2) /AP 2.49(4) /AT 1.98(3)

6(2) /AP 3.96(5) /AT 1.98(3)

7(2) /AP 3.96(5) /AT 2.49(4)

8(2) /AP 3.96(5) /AT 3.00(5)

9(3) /AP 5.94(8) /AT 2.97(5)

10(3) /AP 5.94(8) /AT 3.38(6)

11(3) /AP 5.94(8) /AT 3.99(6)

12(3) /AP 5.94(8) /AT 4.50(7)

13(4) /AP 7.92(11) / AT 4.47(8)

14(4) /AP 7.92(11) /AT 4.98(8)

15(4) /AP 7.92(11) /AT 5.49(9)

16(4) /AP 7.92(11) /AT 6.00(10)

17(4) /AP 7.92(11) /AT 6.00(10)

18(4) /AP 7.92(11) /AT 6.00(10)

So as can be quickly seen the new chart doesn't make artillery weaker, but I still think it is too narrow.

My proposed chart, all as JJ's proposal except artillery do not get a +1 to hit when they fire in IDF mode and all barrages can have up to four templates if they can place at least one BP in each template. BPs must still be divided as evenly as possible between the templates. Last Macro-Weapons always use the AP line even if the target is AV or WE.

BPs/Ex Bms/Firepower

1 /0 /AP6+ AT6+

2 /0 /AP5+ AT6+

3 /0 /AP4+ AT6+

4 /0 /AP4+ AT5+

5-8 /1 /AP3+ AT5+

9-12 /2 /AP3+ AT4+

13-16 /3 /AP2+ AT4+

17+ /4 /AP2+ AT3+

Effects of this chart
BPs(Templates)/AP(BMs)/AT(BMs)

1(1) /AP.48(1) /AT.48(1)

2(2) /AP.96(1) /AT.96(1)

3(3) /AP 1.17(2) /AT1.17(2)

4(4) /AP1.65(2) /AT1.65(2)

5(4) /AP2.16(4) /AT1.65(3)

6(4) /AP3.45(5) /AT1.65(3)

7(4) /AP3.45(5) /AT1.65(3)

8(4) /AP3.96(5) /AT1.65(3)

9(4) /AP4.47(7) /AT1.65(4)

10(4) /AP5.49(8) /AT1.65(4)

11(4) /AP5.49(8) /AT1.65(4)

12(4) /AP6.00(9) /AT1.65(4)

13(4) /AP6.00(10) /AT2.16(6)

14(4) /AP6.00(10) /AT2.94(6)

15(4) /AP6.00(10) /AT3.45(7)

16(4) /AP6.00(10) /AT3.96(7)

17(4) /AP6.48(11) /AT3.96(8)

18(4) /AP6.96(11) /AT3.96(8)

What isn't shown on the chart above is how a more concentrated barrage is more effective against AVs then, more dispersed barrage is. For example a 12xBP barrage dispersed to 4xTemplates is AT 1.65, but at only 3xTemplates it is AT 2.97. Another thing this chart does is make MW more effective against Tanks, and makes a normal barrage weapons less effective against tanks, both of which I think are good things.

Jaldon

[Crunchy Frog] If we took the bones out it wouldn't be crunchy now would it!

Anf from nealhunt

have a few problems with the wholesale change.

1) Points values will be significantly affected in some cases. A 6BP Manticore battery, for instance, has its average # of hits over 2 turns reduced by ~20-40% (depending on the variations of firing patterns and targets). That's a serious difference, imho, and will necessitate a point reduction - a big one.

2) The dispersed barrage rules are very fiddly. More specifically:

A) Barrages commonly have different to-hit rolls for units under different templates. It's bad enough keeping track of different AP and AT attacks, without adding multiple possible to-hit variations.

B) It has a weird "flip-flop" effect for various targets, e.g. it's better to fire at armor with 8BP than it is with 9BP, because the 2 4BP barrages will probably generate more hits than 3 3BP templates. That is fine for units with 1BP that can custom tailor their barrage size, but it is a disability for the multiple-BP units that don't have the same flexibility.

C) Because of the number of combinations of BPs based on which units fire and whether the barrage is dispersed, the arty player is pretty much forced into stopping to consider the min-maxed effects during play. Most times, with most players, that won't be a big deal, but it has a potential to be a true drag on play.

3) It still doesn't fix one of the main sources of complaints - break points on the table. It just moves them elsewhere. For example, it's no longer imperative that the Orks suppress or damage a SM Whirlwind. However, they now really need to suppress an IG Basilisk company because a single BM drops them from a 3 template barrage to a 2 template barrage. It's not as severe as the current 3/4BP break, but it's still a 1 BP difference that cuts 1/3 of the effective firepower.

Basically, I think it is only a minor improvement on the major complaints, and considering that something almost as effective (MW change and table adjustment) can be done with far fewer rule changes and much less fiddliness, I think the "tweak" option is better than the re-write.

Top

The_Real_Chris

Post subject: Revising the barrage rulesFrom Jervis

Posted: Thu Apr 12, 2007 10:06 am

Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm
Posts: 8139
Location: London

And a summary of the previous discussion

Yeah why not.

Jervis proposed a few changes:
1. New BP table
2. Allow dispersed barrages instead of free extra templates
3. MW=inf barrages.

Summary:

Francois: 2/1 Manticore batteries got nerfed!
Propbuddha: They were abusive anyway. No loss.
corey3750: I like it.
francois: Points will have to change.
N0-1_H3r3: it will work.
Grimshawl: It's OK. I still don't like the concept of +1 tohit on indirect fire.
Fajing: Some formations are a bit different. Manticores change approach, basilisks are up, orbital support is up, especially SM stuff.
Grimshawl: See? The change is too big! Is there really a problem?
propbuddha: Uh yes, we really do need a fix, especially to 3vs4BP
Grimshawl: OK, I'll take your word for it.
Blueyes: Hmm, I'll stick to the original rules. This seems like a nerf
TrentBartlem: I love it! It fixes everything we complained about!
Jaldon: I agree with Trent. it's even more flexible than the old rules
Francois: Formation costs still need to change though.
TrentBartlem: The numbercrunching says Whirlwinds,Marauders and maybe IG RT batteries need a drop. Everything else is much the same.
Francois: Yeah, but it's a lot harder to get AT5+ now.
Corey3750: Small BP loses AT5+ but large rt gains more templates.
Corey3750: Oh, and don't expect dispersed barrages to kill tanks.
Fenvarien: I agree with Grimshawl. IDF should lose +1 to-hit.
TrentBartlem: Does anyone have a problem with Soopaguns now?
Jaldon: I ran the numbers; no mass points changes need to be made.
IronKnees: Uh, this is a big change just to fix the 3BP vs 4BP glitch.
corey3750: Soopaguns are fine. I'm more worried about IG rt batteries
corey3750: Also, what about Orbital barrages?
Asaura: My maths say Manticore batts, Whirlwinds are worse.
Asaura: RT companies are better though. Still Vultures own all.
Oblivion: I agree with ironKnees. Add extra template to 3BP!
Sotec: I support JJ's suggestion.
Jaldon: I have a better barrage table. Here it is.
TrentBartlem: Orbital barrages will be buffed under JJ's table.
Jervis: All I want is for orbital barrages and MWs to be changed and for Whirlwinds and Manticores to not suck.
Jervis: After your comments, I have made a new Barrage Table.
Francois: Well, the SM Battle Barge certainly got changed! It's uber.
Propbuddha: Orbital BP needs a buff anyway. What's with the "no +1 on IDF" posts I see?
Athmos: Good job, JJ. I like this table better.
Fajing: I like it, JJ. Still think 3BP only needs AT6+ tho.
Propbuddha: I like it too.
TrentBartlem: My comprehensive list says only marauders and whirlwinds need points changes. Everything else is a-OK. I like it, JJ.
Jaldon: I like it, JJ, although I think IDF should lose +1.
Jervis: I'll put it in the vault asap. Undecided about the +1 IDF yet.
Clovermilk: I vote to lose the +1 IDF.
Guderian: Doesn't the new table nerf rt? Also, if I lose +1 IDF, I expect discounts on my rt.
Tiny-Tim: I vote to keep +1 IDF, unless they gain IDF on other Actions
TrentBartlem: I vote to keep +1 IDF for consistency and commonsense.
asaura: Me too.
Clovermilk: OK, maybe you're right.
Fenvarien: I vote for losing the +1 IDF, as I already use it.
PropBuddha: I vote to keep +1 IDF for consistency (and rt pays for it)
Grimshawl: I vote to lose +1 on IDF.
Francois: I vote to keep it. There's no need to change this.
CrimsonFury: I like JJ's suggestion.
Commissar Zak: Keep +1 IDF. If not, lower the points.
corey3750: I vote to keep it.
Grimshawl: It's not about consistency, it's about not being able to see your target.
Cuban Commissar: I vote to keep +1 on IDF.
Khareef: Artillery is uber now. I vote to lose +1 on IDF.
ToadChild: Keep +1
Drugo: Lose +1
Chernobyl: Look, let's not rush in - let's change things slowly, OK? We don't want the new rules to be worse than the old ones.
MarkJN: I vote to keep +1 on IDF. Still playtesting the BP table.
Athmos: Without +1 on IDF, too much RT costs would change...
GJLane: I'm unsure what would happen after JJ's rules.
tneva82: I love JJ's table! It fixes everything's power!
Jervis: Thx for the feedback. Table goes in vault, +1 on IDF stays.
Mike-Al: Keep +1 on IDF.
Grimshawl: OK, I concede.
billthebobder: I don't see why we need the table. Why not just change 3BP to AP4/AT5?
Athmos: I agree.
jervis: I'm undecided, but let's go with the 3BP change for now, and roll out the full table if it isn't sufficient.
Commissar Zak: But 3BP won't fix Manticore Batteries.
CrimsonFury: Well, it fixes basilisk batteries. However, it doesn't really fix Orbital barrages or rampant min-maxing.
Trentbartlem: There's still no comparison between 3 basilisks vs 3 manticores. This is a bandaid on a gunshot wound.
Athmos: Manticores are still better, but basilisks aren't as bad now.
The_Real_Chris: Remember, RT needs buffing, not nerfing.
The_Real_Chris: And what about a system that doesn't use templates?
coram: I dislike templates too. Can't think of a replacement tho.
Athmos: It would look like the e40k firepower table.
corey3750: I hatenon-template rt. Dispersal should work!
KivArn: it could work.
Lordgeneral of Bloodpact: I like the small change instead of the large change. (then suggests 2 other changes)
KivArn: Ah, now I get it, corey3750.
dafrca: Leave the templates alone. This is Not Needed.
Grimshawl: I like templates.
Jervis: I like templates. They are staying.
billthebobder: Trent, 4BP is x% better than 3BP, which is y% better than 2BP. What's wrong with that?
rkhatzar: "easy way out" solutions are generally bad. Fix it right.
Antipodean Ork: I prefer a minimalist approach. Most formations are pre-minmaxed anyway.
nealhunt: I vote for a minimalist approach.
TrentBartlem: I vote to keep the new table.
CrimsonFury: Me too.
The_Real_Chris: Will involve recosting lots of units tho.
CrimsonFury: We've been over this before. Only 2 or 3 units.
nealhunt: I think the new table is inelegant and full of holes.
CrimsonFury: I disagree.
The_Real_Chris: No, really, lots of units need to be recosted.
TrentBartlem: No it won't. Read the history.
The_Real_Chris: Oh ok. But what about survivability?
TrentBartlem: On rt units? They die like flies anyway.
CrimsonFury: rt degradation is the same as under the old rules.
billthebobder: I vote for the minimalist approach.
nealhunt: Me too.
The_Real_Chris: Why not make 4BP worse as well as make 3BP better?
CrimsonFury: It makes for odd situations though.
Francois: I vote for the 3BP tweak.
Commissar Zak: I vote for nerfing 4BP.
Commissar Zak: All this AT5+ makes it pointless to stay in a vehicle under fire though.
Trentbartlem: I still think 4BP is the problem, not 3BP.
Billthebobder: Only in theory, vs larger formations.

Proposals:

New Barrage Table
For: 14 (corey3750, N0-1_H3r3, Grimshawl, propbuddha, TrentBartlem, Jaldon, Asaura Sotec Francois, Athmos (originally), Fajing CrimsonFury tneva82 Commissar Zak)
Against: 3 (Blueyes, IronKnees billthebobder)
Result: On Hold

Lose +1 to-hit on Indirect Fire
For: 5 (Fenvarien, Grimshawl, Clovermilk(initially), Khareef, Drugo)
Against: 13 (Tiny-Tim, TrentBartlem, asaura, Clovermilk(later), PropBuddha, Francois, Commissar Zak, corey3750, Cuban Commissar, ToadChild, MarkJN, Jervis, Mike-Al)
Motion: Failed

3BP tweak instead of new Barrage Table
For: 5 (Francois nealhunt Antipodean Ork billthebobder Lordgeneral of Bloodpact)
Against: 4 (Trentbartlem CrimsonFury rkhatzar Commissar Zak)
Motion: Passed

Personally, I'd prefer to hear from all the people who voted for/against the original barrage table, since hardly anyone by comparison has discussed the 3BP tweak.

Trentbartlem

Top

Blarg D Impaler

Post subject: Revising the barrage rulesFrom Jervis

Posted: Thu Apr 12, 2007 4:33 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 9:08 pm
Posts: 356
Location: Beavercreek, Ohio, USA

Dispersed Barrages - I like the idea that all barrages are single barrage template firing events and that you can expand the target sheaf by dropping the extra blast markers. ?I have some suggestions that might make artillery and some of the ideas presented work:

Barrage Points/Extra Blast Markers/To Hit AP&MW/To Hit AT

1BP/None/6+/6+
2BP/None/5+/6+
3BP/None/4+/6+
4BP/None/4+/5+
5-8BP/One BM/4+/5+
9-12 BP/Two BM/4+/5+
13-16BP/Three BM/4+/5+
17 or more BP/Four BM/4/5+

Extra Blast Markers: Really large artillery barrages are very effective at suppressing enemy troops as well as killing them. To represent this, a large barrage may inflict extra Blast markers, as shown on the barrage table. The Blast markers are placed in addition to any Blast markers placed on a formation for it coming under fire or for any casualties that it suffered. If several formations are being attacked then each receives the appropriate number of extra Blast markers.

Dispersing and Concentrating Barrages: If you wish when firing a barrage of 5 or more Barrage points you can choose to exchange one of the extra blast markers that you may place on the target formation for an extra barrage template. ?Place the extra barrage template next to and touching the initial template and move move up to 4 of the barrage points from the initial barrage template to the extra barrage template. ?The only restriction on this is that the initial barrage template may not be brought to below 4 barrage points. ?So if the initial barrage template has 5 to 7 barrage points on it then the extra barrage template will only have 1 to 3 barrage points associated with it. ?Any remaining extra blast markers that may still be assigned have to be placed on formations that were targeted by the initial barrage template.

If the initial barrage template still has extra blast markers that may be placed associated with it then they may be traded in for yet more barrage templates. ?These extra barrage templates must be touching the initial barrage template and may have up to 4 barrage points moved from the initial barrage template to them. ?The only restriction on this is that the initial barrage template and all previous extra barrage templates of the group may not have less than 4 barrage points.

The second (and third, etc...) extra barrage template does not have to be placed touching the initial barrage template, so long as it is touching one other barrage template from the group and that all of the barrage templates are arranged in a straight line.

If the initial barrage template still has 2 or more extra blast markers associated with it then one or more of the extra blast markers may be moved to one of the extra barrage templates. ?This will allow it to be placed on a formation that is targetted by that barrage template. ?The barrage template that this extra blast marker is moved to must have 4 barrage points, be touching either the initial barrage template or another barrage template with an extra blast marker associated with it, and may not have more blast markers associated with it than the initial barrage template after all of the extra blast markers have been moved.

Roll to hit the units under each template normally, using the number of Barrage points allocated to the template to work out the to hit rolls etc.

Strafing Orbital Bombardment: Orbital Bombardments that use barrage points would use the above rules, using the larger "ordinance" templates as per normal rules. ?However, a player could elect to convert all of the larger templates that are generated into the smaller sized barrage templates. ?3 of the smaller barrage templates are placed for each larger template converted. ?All of the larger templates must be converted into smaller templates, and all of the smaller templates must be placed in a straight line. ?If there is a larger template with less than 4BP that gets converted into three smaller templates these smaller templates are recombined to form as many 4BP smaller templates as possible. ?Take the number of barrage points that the larger template has, multiply by 3, and then divide that product by 4. ?This is the number of 4BP smaller barrage templates that are created, with any remaining barrage points going into a single smaller barrage template.

Any extra blast markers that the orbital bombardment would generate get divided evenly among the smaller barrage templates.

Example: A Space Marine battle barge makes an orbital bombardment attack on turn three of a game. ?The Space Marine player could elect:

1) To keep the attack as one larger template attack of 14BP. ?This would allow him to place 3 blast marker onto formations that had been targetted by the attack.

2) ?Convert the 14BP larger template attack into 3 x 14BP smaller template attacks, each one being in a straight line and the three extra blast markers split evenly among the 3 smaller templates, 1 per smaller template. ?Note: There are only 3 extra blast markers total, not 9 extra blast markers.

3) Create more larger templates as per the above rules. ?The attack could be dispersed into as many as 3 larger templates of 4BP and 1 larger template of 2BP.

4) Create the extra larger templates as per the above rules and then convert all of the larger templates into smaller templates on a 3 smaller for 1 larger template ratio. ?For a maximum dispersion strafing orbital bombardment a total of 10 smaller barrage templates of 4BP in a straight line and 1 smaller barrage template of 2BP on one of the ends of the straight line. ?(The 3 larger 4BP templates get converted into 9 smaller 4BP templates and the 1 larger 2BP template gets converted into 3 smaller 2BP templates, which in turn get condensed into 1 smaller 4BP template and 1 smaller 2BP template.)

_________________
I shot a Deathstrike Missile and destroyed an enemy titan in my pajamas last night. ?How it got into my pajamas I still don't know...

Top

The_Real_Chris

Post subject: Revising the barrage rulesFrom Jervis

Posted: Thu Apr 12, 2007 5:15 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm
Posts: 8139
Location: London

Blarg whats the reasoning behind the alternate orbital bombardment system? I though it was supposed to represent mass drivers and nukes. What do you envisage being fired?

Top

Blarg D Impaler

Post subject: Revising the barrage rulesFrom Jervis

Posted: Thu Apr 12, 2007 5:58 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 9:08 pm
Posts: 356
Location: Beavercreek, Ohio, USA

(The_Real_Chris @ Apr. 12 2007,12:15)

QUOTE

Blarg whats the reasoning behind the alternate orbital bombardment system? I though it was supposed to represent mass drivers and nukes. What do you envisage being fired?

Well, certainly not mass drivers and nukes! If a mass driver or a nuke were to target an area in a game of Epic it would do TK(D100) damage to everything on the board!

It's been a while since I played Battle Fleet Garbage, but the weapons on the ships are (were?) basically divided into two basic types: batteries and lances. Batteries are groups of cannons that fire en masse to saturate a target area in an effort to hit a ship while lances are large caliber laser cannons. You can see the differences between the two weapon types in Epic when you see barrages that use the large templates (batteries) and pin-point attacks that do the TK damage (lances).

The assumption is that when the batteries conduct an orbital bombardment their firing solution is such that they saturate an area of ground. Aside from staggering their fire a little to prevent fratricide amongst the rounds as they impact you are effectively seeing all of the guns in the battery firing at once. Change the firing solution so that you ripple fire the guns and you change the target sheaf from an area of effect to a swath, tracing a path on the ground where the ship has traversed overhead.

Do you remember seeing bomb bay footage from Allied bombers doing carpet bombing over Germany during WW2 on a history show? Do you remember how the bombers would drop 1 bomb every second or so, and as the bombs would hit the ground you would see a line of explosions? Think of that, but replace the B-17* with a Space Marine Battle Barge and replace the bombs with cannon rounds from a battery. That is what I envisage.

* I'd say Lancaster, but except for early in the war the British did primarily night bombing.

_________________
I shot a Deathstrike Missile and destroyed an enemy titan in my pajamas last night. ?How it got into my pajamas I still don't know...

Top

Legion 4

Post subject: Revising the barrage rulesFrom Jervis

Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 6:20 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 5:13 pm
Posts: 36989
Location: Ohio - USA

All very interesting ... some good points ... Keep going ! I look forward to the results ...

_________________
Legion 4 "Cry Havoc, and let slip the Dogs of War !" ... "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

Top

nealhunt

Post subject: Revising the barrage rulesFrom Jervis

Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 6:42 pm

Purestrain

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA

I think rather than "here's how you divide it up" the better approach for converged versus dispersed barrages would be to just have different tables. That way you don't have a bunch of "this template hits with X, that template hits with Y... no, wait... this will hit with Y and that with X... no, wait... what did I say last time?"

This is just a ballpark example, not a proposal for hard numbers.

All barrages get bonus BM based on size.
Barrages of less than 4BP cannot disperse.
Converged increases to-hit.
Dispersed maintains modest to-hit, but gains templates.
===========

BPs----------Ex Bms-----Converged-----Dispersed (AP4+/AT6+)
------------------------1 template----------#Templates
1 -----------0----------AP6+ AT6+----------n/a
2------------0----------AP5+ AT6+----------n/a
3------------0----------AP4+ AT5+----------n/a
4-5---------1----------AP4+ AT5+----------2
6-8---------2----------AP4+ AT5+----------2
9-12--------2----------AP3+ AT4+----------3
13-16------3----------AP3+ AT4+----------4
17+---------3----------AP2+ AT3+----------5

_________________
Neal

Top

Blarg D Impaler

Post subject: Revising the barrage rulesFrom Jervis

Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 8:15 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 9:08 pm
Posts: 356
Location: Beavercreek, Ohio, USA

(Hena @ Apr. 13 2007,12:58)

QUOTE

Blarg. I'm not sure that your way for dispersion is good as the difference between those two barrages can be huge. As 5 BP barrage becomes 4BP and 1BP templates (and the hit difference on those is rather large).

First of all let me say that I am basing everything off of the barrage point table that TRC posted at the beginning. Since I never got around to memorizing the BP Table and I don't have access to an official copy here at work I'm flying a little blind. If what TRC posted is different than the official table then obviously changes would have to be made. My apologies.

All right Hena, let's run the numbers...

Assumptions:

1) Average dice rolls.
2) You will be able to get two or three units under each template placed.
3) The targets will be infantry.

Analysis:

5BP + 1BM with 2 INF per template = 1 hit + 1BM

4BP + 1BP with 2 INF per template = 1 hit and 33.3% chance of another hit

5BP + 1BM with 3 INF per template = 1 hit + 50% chance of another hit + 1BM

4BP + 1BP with 3 INF per template = 2 hits

I could blow out the analysis even further by cross referencing the armor save of the targets, but that would require an assumption as to what the average armor save would be. I would have said 4+ (where the RA units would counteract all of the poor armor save units) but that would have just thrown more uncertainty and arguing into the discussion.

So, pretty much what it boils down to is: what is a blast marker worth? You can go for the assured, yet temporary, reduction in firepower of the target with a chance of breaking the formation, or you can go for the chance of hitting, and maybe destroying, another unit. Here is where the situational factors come into play:

1) What is the armor save of the targets?
2) Are the targets in any terrain?
3) Is this the first time they have been targetted, or have they already taken a beating?
4) Are the targets tightly clumped or pushing the max unit coherency distance?
5) Are there any Leaders present in the formation?

All things considered, I'd say that a blast marker is roughly equal to a 1BP barrage template, because so much of it is situationally dependent. But I could be wrong...

Of course, this all depends upon whether we are basing this upon an accurate BP Table from above...

_________________
I shot a Deathstrike Missile and destroyed an enemy titan in my pajamas last night. ?How it got into my pajamas I still don't know...

Top

Blarg D Impaler

Post subject: Revising the barrage rulesFrom Jervis

Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 8:25 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 9:08 pm
Posts: 356
Location: Beavercreek, Ohio, USA

(nealhunt @ Apr. 13 2007,13:42)

QUOTE

I think rather than "here's how you divide it up" the better approach for converged versus dispersed barrages would be to just have different tables. ?That way you don't have a bunch of "this template hits with X, that template hits with Y... no, wait... this will hit with Y and that with X... no, wait... what did I say last time?"

It's really not that hard. If you follow the logic in what I typed, and if I did it right, if you disperse the barrage you will have at most 3 different BP of templates to worry about: Your initial template which may be more than 4BP, 1 or more 4BP templates, and a template of less than 4BP. You should be able to easily remember which is your initial template, the "less than 4BP" template should be on the end, and everything in between is going to be 4BP. That was the intent at least.

And if you still have trouble remembering what is what, you can place dice on the table in a manner to remind you which is which. If people can't figure out a way to keep track of which template is which they probably don't deserve to play the game! We do have standards, after all.

_________________
I shot a Deathstrike Missile and destroyed an enemy titan in my pajamas last night. ?How it got into my pajamas I still don't know...

Top

nealhunt

Post subject: Revising the barrage rulesFrom Jervis

Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 9:41 pm

Purestrain

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA

(Blarg D Impaler @ Apr. 13 2007,20:25)

QUOTE

And if you still have trouble remembering what is what...

Actually, I just through that out there being silly.

The real problem to my mind is the min-maxing involved. Figuring out where templates can be placed and how to split up the BP to get the maximum hits is going to be a pain and slow the game.

_________________
Neal

Top

Blarg D Impaler

Post subject: Revising the barrage rulesFrom Jervis

Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 9:59 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 9:08 pm
Posts: 356
Location: Beavercreek, Ohio, USA

(nealhunt @ Apr. 13 2007,16:41)

QUOTE

The real problem to my mind is the min-maxing involved. ?Figuring out where templates can be placed and how to split up the BP to get the maximum hits is going to be a pain and slow the game.

That's a problem inherent with artillery regardless. I've seen guys agonize over the placement of artillery barrages for minutes, which in a game as simple as Epic: Armageddon is as laughable as it is infuriating. If you introduce dispersing artillery, regardless of who's system you adopt, you are going to pay for the increased flexibility and realism with a slightly longer game. Unless you are playing against a knuckle dragger you are probably extending the length of the game by about 10 minutes or so, opposing forces dependent.

If the increased time demands are that big of a concern then the discussion should be defined between rules that are intended to fix artillery -vs- optional rules intended to enhance the game. If artillery doesn't need fixing then everything is going to be a time extending enhancement and should be listed as optional.

_________________
I shot a Deathstrike Missile and destroyed an enemy titan in my pajamas last night. ?How it got into my pajamas I still don't know...

Top

Print view

Previous topic | Next topic

Page 1 of 4

[ 50 posts ]

Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:

Revising the barrage rulesFrom Jervis

Who is online