Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 3 of 3
  [ 42 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

Problems with proposed fixes
Braveheart
 Post subject: Problems with proposed fixes
PostPosted: Tue Sep 04, 2007 11:42 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 8:11 am
Posts: 243
I don't post very often; and now I can see why.

It seems to me alot of people what to change things because they can. Alot of changes only create more problems. I say this time and time again; THERE IS NOT ALOT THAT NEEDS CHANGING. In fact I can only think of points changes (e.g. Warhound should be 275pts - 300pts ish; predators should be around 250pts).

And NO the  intermingled rule WILL NOT be moved from the tournament scene. Anyone who doesn't use the  intermingled rule isn't playing EPIC

_________________
You can take my life .... but you will never take my FREEDOM!
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Markconz
 Post subject: Problems with proposed fixes
PostPosted: Wed Sep 05, 2007 12:38 am 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: New Zealand

(Braveheart @ Sep. 04 2007,22:42)
QUOTE
THERE IS NOT ALOT THAT NEEDS CHANGING. In fact I can only think of points changes (e.g. Warhound should be 275pts - 300pts ish; predators should be around 250pts).

So the current assault system is fine?
Skimmers don't need changing?

We'll change Warhounds to 275 and predators to 250 and be done then. Anything else or is that it?

Specific criticism about the rules not the army lists  like it says at the start of the thread please.

Anyone who doesn't use the intermingled rule isn't playing EPIC


:laugh:

Hey I use the intermingled rule! I just ignore the Scout 10cm FAQ, and the 'breaking a formation on the other side of the battlefield' exploit. If that means I'm playing 'NOT EPIC' I guess I'll just have to live with the shame of that...  :D

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Markconz
 Post subject: Problems with proposed fixes
PostPosted: Wed Sep 05, 2007 12:44 am 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: New Zealand

(rpr @ Sep. 04 2007,13:41)
QUOTE
I do not like the certain "strange cases" linked to intermingling.

Could the intermingling rule have this addition:
- after all charges and counter-charges are performed, any formations not within 15cm of enemy are dropped from the engagement (this only applies to first charge-counter-charge. If the engagement continues to second round, all the formations in engagement stay on it despite any casualties)

This means that the attacker can choose to include the enemy formation somewhere 60cm away from the intended target, linked by some scouts, but including it will only mean that this included formation will get a free counter-charge..

All interesting ideas, but I doubt any change will make it into the rules this time around unfortunately. This will probably remain the one houserule my own group will continue to use.

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
yme-loc
 Post subject: Problems with proposed fixes
PostPosted: Wed Sep 05, 2007 9:49 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 4:58 pm
Posts: 599

(Markconz @ Sep. 05 2007,00:38)
QUOTE

(Braveheart @ Sep. 04 2007,22:42)
QUOTE
THERE IS NOT ALOT THAT NEEDS CHANGING. In fact I can only think of points changes (e.g. Warhound should be 275pts - 300pts ish; predators should be around 250pts).

So the current assault system is fine?
Skimmers don't need changing?

We'll change Warhounds to 275 and predators to 250 and be done then. Anything else or is that it?

Specific criticism about the rules not the army lists ?like it says at the start of the thread please.

Anyone who doesn't use the intermingled rule isn't playing EPIC


:laugh:

Hey I use the intermingled rule! I just ignore the Scout 10cm FAQ, and the 'breaking a formation on the other side of the battlefield' exploit. If that means I'm playing 'NOT EPIC' I guess I'll just have to live with the shame of that... ?:D

We probably all need to calm down a it here.

The answer to your questions, is yes all those rules work just fine - in fact if you play the game as it comes in the book its great! token assaults and unlimited skimmer sight and all.

Its that set of rules that I started playing and love and any changes have the potential to make the game worse as well as better.

That said the skimmer rule was a very good change and one that was supported by pretty much everyone from a very early stage.

But not all the proposed changes are anywhere near as well supported - I know I gave up commenting on rules changes I disagreed with early on for a variety of reasons and suspect others did.




_________________
Epic UK - Improving and Enhancing Epic Gaming in the UK
[url]http://epic-uk.co.uk/wp[/url]
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Markconz
 Post subject: Problems with proposed fixes
PostPosted: Wed Sep 05, 2007 10:26 am 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: New Zealand

(yme-loc @ Sep. 05 2007,08:49)
QUOTE
That said the skimmer rule was a very good change and one that was supported by pretty much everyone from a very early stage.

Sorry but the second part of that statement simply isn't true.

The skimmer rule was the subject of heated arguments and endless threads for about a decade. I know, I was there. Greg and I were posting about it in '98 on the yahoo group for the previous edition of the rules! That same discussion continued right into EA unabated and just as furiously... and eventually through a long tortuous process a decision was made.

Kind of different to the way you describe it(!) and worth bearing in mind what really happened with the skimmer rule development process, when you look at the process on other issues now.

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
nealhunt
 Post subject: Problems with proposed fixes
PostPosted: Wed Sep 05, 2007 1:46 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain

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

(Braveheart @ Sep. 04 2007,23:42)
QUOTE
It seems to me alot of people what to change things because they can. Alot of changes only create more problems. I say this time and time again; THERE IS NOT ALOT THAT NEEDS CHANGING.

I actually agree with this for the most part.  I think the folks that post around here tend to be the kind that like to tinker with stuff.  I think there is a steady stream of proposals that would only affect minor aspects of game play and result in little or no discernible improvement.  I've steered clear of many of those.

The only major changes, imho, are the assault rules and, when considered in total, the aircraft rules.  They have both been discussed extensively and I think both are definitely needed.

Past those 2 big changes, it's mostly stuff like integrating FAQs and making definitive decisions on issues that have been long outstanding.  The majority of proposed rule changes are just clarifications of confusing rules or tweaks to make things flow more smoothly or more intuitively.

_________________
Neal
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Markconz
 Post subject: Problems with proposed fixes
PostPosted: Wed Sep 05, 2007 5:00 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: New Zealand
Yes but those few core rule changes DO need to be made. Braveheart was saying he couldn't think of anything that needed changing except points changes to army lists. Not too seriously I hope.

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
yme-loc
 Post subject: Problems with proposed fixes
PostPosted: Thu Sep 06, 2007 10:25 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 4:58 pm
Posts: 599

(Markconz @ Sep. 05 2007,10:26)
QUOTE
Kind of different to the way you describe it(!) and worth bearing in mind what really happened with the skimmer rule development process, when you look at the process on other issues now.

Your right of course strange how my mind blanked out the horror of those disussions.

I meant its been reasonably smooth, since a final proposed rule was put up on this more recent forum.

_________________
Epic UK - Improving and Enhancing Epic Gaming in the UK
[url]http://epic-uk.co.uk/wp[/url]
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
yme-loc
 Post subject: Problems with proposed fixes
PostPosted: Thu Sep 06, 2007 10:28 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 4:58 pm
Posts: 599

(nealhunt @ Sep. 05 2007,13:46)
QUOTE
The only major changes, imho, are the assault rules and, when considered in total, the aircraft rules. ?They have both been discussed extensively and I think both are definitely needed.

Personally I think the air rules work great for what they are a secondary section of a ground war game.

Just stop air landing craft from claiming objectives on the turn they land.

I am so conservative with the rules - I even think you tinker far too much, must be getting old.

_________________
Epic UK - Improving and Enhancing Epic Gaming in the UK
[url]http://epic-uk.co.uk/wp[/url]
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
The_Real_Chris
 Post subject: Problems with proposed fixes
PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 8:52 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:45 pm
Posts: 8139
Location: London
To be honest at this point I'd love everything to be given to neal (if he agrees) and he makes a final arbitrary ruling and we go back to army list testing (I get to play games again now you know).

Indeed since this post is september and i am catching up is this what has happened?

_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
nealhunt
 Post subject: Problems with proposed fixes
PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 1:55 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
TRC:  Great to have you back!

_________________
Neal
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
  Print view Previous topic | Next topic 
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 3 of 3
  [ 42 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 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

Search for:
Jump to:  


Powered by phpBB ® Forum Software © phpBB Group
CoDFaction Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net