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

Should we make MW into AP/AT/AA
Yes, include it now 44%  44%  [ 12 ]
No, leave it for the future 56%  56%  [ 15 ]
Total votes : 27

Should we make MW into AP/AT/AA
Dwarf Supreme
 Post subject: Should we make MW into AP/AT/AA
PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 1:52 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 8:45 pm
Posts: 11149
Location: Canton, CT, USA

(Chroma @ Nov. 01 2007,19:49)
QUOTE

(Evil and Chaos @ Nov. 02 2007,00:45)
QUOTE
Are there any 'real' nos?

If only that had been included in the poll... ?:D

Yeah, but that's one way of guaranteeing that "Yes" wins.  :p

_________________
"I don't believe in destiny or the guiding hand of fate." N. Peart
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
rpr
 Post subject: Should we make MW into AP/AT/AA
PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 9:16 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2007 1:32 pm
Posts: 516
If (when) this is included, then also think how it would affect hit allocation batches. Mainly h
ow lance and TK fit into picture.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
The_Real_Chris
 Post subject: Should we make MW into AP/AT/AA
PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 9:40 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

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

(Dwarf Supreme @ Nov. 02 2007,05:52)
QUOTE

(Chroma @ Nov. 01 2007,19:49)
QUOTE

(Evil and Chaos @ Nov. 02 2007,00:45)
QUOTE
Are there any 'real' nos?

If only that had been included in the poll...  :D

Yeah, but that's one way of guaranteeing that "Yes" wins.  :p

Ah, a flaw :)

This wasn't intentional, rather no one has ever objected in all the time it has floated around.

_________________
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  
 
Moscovian
 Post subject: Should we make MW into AP/AT/AA
PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 5:34 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 6:32 pm
Posts: 6414
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania USA
My guess is we should just do what E&C did which is just make a line note for the unit and see how things go.  If more and more units start to develop in this direction then it is something that can be reviewed on the next rules review.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
mageboltrat
 Post subject: Should we make MW into AP/AT/AA
PostPosted: Sat Nov 03, 2007 8:47 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 5:07 pm
Posts: 1015
If Markconz is making a definitive version of the rules to act as a base to build future development then I would suggest changing it now, before the document is finalized. It would make things easier for people to create and edit armies with the added flexibility, it does not really change the game much (Add a note to say MW 3+ is the same as AT3+/AP3+ , MW) and to be honest it I think it will make the rules easier to understand, rather than have something called MW's that don't apply to the normal rules, we have a MW note which acts in a similar way to Lances, by altering the saves.

_________________
Image
My Photobucket
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Irondeath
 Post subject: Should we make MW into AP/AT/AA
PostPosted: Sun Nov 04, 2007 10:18 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 12:36 pm
Posts: 653
What about MW barrages?

_________________
Visit www.epic-battles.de the ultimate german epic site&forum!
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
J0k3r
 Post subject: Should we make MW into AP/AT/AA
PostPosted: Sun Nov 04, 2007 11:27 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 11:18 pm
Posts: 876
Location: Edinburgh, UK
Just so there is some voice of dissent: NO no no, a terrible idea.  Never ever do this.  Or i will throw all my minis out of the pram. :p

But in truth I can't see any reason not to do this, Should simplify things greatly by eliminating the old- all my macros hit gretchin, and adds great flexibility to the range of weapon options possible.  For the record though I think this should happen in a later version- right now there are enough changes on the cards.  At some point we need to draw a line under them just to get the current rules changes tested and played with.

_________________
"Do not offend the Chair Leg of Truth; it is wise and terrible."
-Spider Jerusalem
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Blarg D Impaler
 Post subject: Should we make MW into AP/AT/AA
PostPosted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 5:46 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 9:08 pm
Posts: 356
Location: Beavercreek, Ohio, USA
To keep the nomenclature a little cleaner and shorter why not replace the "A" with an "L" for Lance shots, an "M" for Macro-weapon shots, and a "T" for Titan Killer shots.

Represent it like these examples of a weapon that can hit anything on a 4+:

Normal shots: AP4+/AT4+/AA4+
Lance Shots: LP4+/LT4+/LA4+
Macro-weapon shots: MP4+/MT4+/MA4+
Titan Killer shots: TP4+/TT4+(D3)/TA4+(D3) (The "(D3)" represents the damage it does.)
Mixed example #1: MP4+/AT4+/LA4+ (for something like canister shot/flak weapons)
Mixed example #2: AP4+/MT4+/LA4+ (for something like penetrator anti-tank weapons)

_________________
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
 Profile Send private message  
 
Dave
 Post subject: Should we make MW into AP/AT/AA
PostPosted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 6:21 pm 
Hybrid
Hybrid
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 11:25 pm
Posts: 9549
Location: Worcester, MA
I think the notes section is still the best place for the special rules, mixing in these special rules into the Firepower column can get confusing.  Especially if a weapon has more than one of these special abilities or if we happen to add another ability down the line that starts with a M, L or T as well.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
The_Real_Chris
 Post subject: Should we make MW into AP/AT/AA
PostPosted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 7:24 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

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

(Blarg D Impaler @ Nov. 05 2007,21:46)
QUOTE
To keep the nomenclature a little cleaner and shorter why not replace the "A" with an "L" for Lance shots, an "M" for Macro-weapon shots, and a "T" for Titan Killer shots.

Mixed example #1: MP4+/AT4+/LA4+ (for something like canister shot/flak weapons)

Wow, that i think is the neatest and most flexible way.

Not sure how often it would be used but still good stuff. Not sure about the damage, can't see it ever being much different.

Of course it is a bit more complex, but the game is for those who rarely chew the lead models.

I think the simplest way is simply have everything ap/at/aa, with notes in the special, but if given the choice I would go for the slightly more complex stat line, especially since it wouldn't impact most units.

_________________
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  
 
Ilushia
 Post subject: Should we make MW into AP/AT/AA
PostPosted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 10:48 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 10:50 am
Posts: 1189
This also adds the principle main -other- reason you might want to differentiate MW shots: So that you can make weapons which are only MW against certain kinds of targets. Something which rips up infantry with ease might not be so hot against vehicles (Land mines, for instance).
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
BlackLegion
 Post subject: Should we make MW into AP/AT/AA
PostPosted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 1:44 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 12:13 am
Posts: 8711
Location: Leipzig, Germany, Europe, Sol III, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Universe
I would unse the abbrevastiuons in another way:

MAP = MacroAntiPersonelll
MAT = MacroAntiTank
MAA = MacroAntiAirctaft
LAP = LanceAntiPersonell
LAT = LanceAntiTank
LAA =LanceAntiAircraft
TAP = TitankillerAntiPersonell
TAT= TitankillerAntiTank
TAA = TitankillerAntiAircraft

If i read LP i automatically read it as LancePersonell which is plain wrong :D LAP is more natural.

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Markconz
 Post subject: Should we make MW into AP/AT/AA
PostPosted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 3:52 am 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: New Zealand
Yes I like Blargs idea, and BlackLegions slight modification of it even more. Being able to pronounce the acronym would be great to aid learning and usage.  "I TAP your Supreme Commander" "Nooooo!!"

Best left for serious consideration for the next rules revision I think, but I'm seeing some possibilities I like here.

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
  Print view Previous topic | Next topic 
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 2 of 3
  [ 31 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 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